Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 July.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

(Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Monday 3 July at 7 o'clock.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.
To be considered on Thursday 6 July.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.
To be further considered on Thursday 6 July.

BELL'S BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Rail Privatisation

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the privatisation of British Rail on the economy of Northern Ireland. [29801]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): None.

Mr. Foulkes: That is a pathetic answer, but typical. The Minister must be aware of the economic and strategic importance of the line to Stranraer, not only for south-west Scotland but for Northern Ireland. Will he seek some assurances from British Rail that that line will continue if the ill-thought-out privatisation of British Rail goes ahead?

Mr. Moss: The question of the Stranraer rail link is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we have decided not to

carry out an assessment of the impact of rail privatisation for the following reasons: most business between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is road-based, for logistical reasons. We believe that privatisation will result in a more efficient rail system in Great Britain, thereby offering welcome choice for Northern Ireland businesses.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be well aware that, even though many cars travel between Larne and Stranraer, a considerable number of foot passengers travel from Belfast to Glasgow and vice versa. They use the line that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), and it is an essential line for that reason.
When the Minister consults his hon. Friends in the Scottish Office, will he also remember that the terminal facilities at Stranraer are vastly inferior to those available in Larne? Perhaps he would discuss obtaining some funds from Europe to update those facilities in Stranraer, which would help the economy of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Moss: I am pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the future of the Stranraer rail link is part of the minimum service requirement. It is included in the proposed ScotRail franchise, and that is currently out for consultation. The hon. Gentleman said that foot passengers use the ferry, but only about 1 per cent. of passengers travelling from Northern Ireland ports arrive at those ports by rail, and only about 10 per cent. of passengers travelling from Northern Ireland ports to Great Britain complete their journey by rail.

Economic Outlook

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the economic outlook for the Province. [29802]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The outlook is very encouraging. Employment and output are rising and unemployment is falling. Business confidence and investment intentions are at high levels. New opportunities are opening up for tourism and inward investment, and exports are increasing as our indigenous companies expand. With continuing peace, Northern Ireland's economic prospects are the best that they have been for a generation.

Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland has reached its lowest levels since 1981, that manufacturing output increased by 7 per cent. last year and that exports from Northern Ireland are growing faster than the United Kingdom average? Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement of the proposed £100 million investment in the Province by a major supermarket chain which will bring with it 2,000 new jobs? Finally, I suggest that much of that success is due to the wholly improved atmosphere in Northern Ireland which is due in large part to the initiatives undertaken by my right hon. and learned Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ancram: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I certainly endorse the welcome that he gave to the investment that we are now seeing. I thank him for highlighting the improvements that are occurring in the Northern Ireland economy. It is indicative of how much things have improved that not only has unemployment


fallen to its lowest levels since 1981 but also, as of March this year, the number of those in employment has reached a record high. That figure speaks for itself. It is evident that enormous opportunities are available to the people of Northern Ireland in terms of economic growth if peace is sustained and political stability can be achieved. That is what the people of Northern Ireland are asking of their political representatives.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that permanent peace will provide a prize in economic terms in which all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland can share? Does he accept that the new investment arising from the successful conferences held in Belfast and Washington, which were promoted by Prime Minister Major and President Clinton, will be of greatest economic benefit if the new jobs created are accessible to both sections of the community so that all can share in the prosperity that follows?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is absolutely right to underline the fact that peace is the key to future growth and prosperity in Northern Ireland. It is not just temporary peace that will achieve that outcome, but confidence that the peace is permanent. At the end of the day, that can be underlined only by the creation of political stability through political agreement.
I also endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments that inward investment, particularly as a result of the two conferences to which he referred, will bring the greatest degree of confidence to the community in Northern Ireland if the benefits of that investment are shared as widely as possible.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Minister accept that the economy of Northern Ireland would be boosted considerably if Shorts, as part of the Westland team, were successful in securing the Ministry of Defence's order for attack helicopters with its Apache version? Does the Minister recognise that that would open the way for Starstreak to be used in the United States? Does he accept that the Government should push from within the Cabinet to ensure that the order goes to Westland and that Shorts benefits as a result?

Mr. Ancram: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I agree with what he has said and I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been talking to the appropriate people in this instance, in particular Commerce Secretary Brown.

Peace Process

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position over the peace process. [29803]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): We wish to establish beyond doubt that the permanence of peace is truly intended. Therefore, we continue to press Sinn Fein and the loyalist parties alike to address the decommissioning of arms and to continue with exploratory dialogue to that end.

Mr. Winnick: Can the Secretary of State explain what he meant in his letter last week in The Times when he said that the future prospects of Northern Ireland have already been much damaged by the quarrelling among

Tory Members of Parliament? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that whoever happens to be elected leader of the Tory party in due course—be it in the first, second or any other ballot—will be committed fully to the peace process and to the framework document? Does he agree that the peace process is far too precious to be sacrificed through Tory quarrelling and civil war in the party ranks?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, very uncharacteristically, is engaging in party political games on a subject that is far too serious for that. Of course everybody in the present Government is fully committed to what has come to be called the peace process, and of course it is the case that instability in the position of any Prime Minister having the commitment demonstrated by my right hon. Friend has a deleterious effect. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean. If he does not, he can read my article in The Daily Telegraph today.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No doubt the Secretary of State read his own piece in The Daily Telegraph today, but did he read the report of the release of an IRA prisoner who was found guilty in Germany? Did he read the outrageous remarks made by the judge, who said that prisoner was being released although guilty because of the connotations of the peace process? The judge said also that the Roman Catholic people of Northern Ireland had a desire to bomb their way into a united Ireland and that there was never any religious or civil liberty in Northern Ireland for Roman Catholic people. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something to correct the German authorities about the present situation?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is important that the true facts about Northern Ireland, its democratic status and the applicability of the rule of law there should always be made clear at home and abroad. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, tempting though it is I do not believe that I should depart from my rule of not commenting on judicial decisions.

Mr. Trimble: Can the Secretary of State assure the House and the people of Northern Ireland that the peace process and political considerations will not be allowed to interfere with the normal operation of the criminal justice system—so that when, as is likely now that we have had peace for some time, witnesses are prepared to come forward and give positive identification in respect of specific criminal acts, the normal processes will be followed? If so, there would be no further repetitions of the reported incident in which a leading member of the IRA identified as the trigger man by a witness was released in breach of normal procedures, simply because the police feared that the Northern Ireland Office would be upset if a major provo were charged.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, of course. The remaining parts of his question proceed on a number of premises that I do not accept. The Northern Ireland prosecution system, as I recall from the many years that I had responsibility for it, is entirely independent and impartial. The Law Officers of the Crown are there to ensure that it remains so. I am certain that my hon. and learned Friends will do so.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of widespread support for his insistence that the


provisionals cannot take part in substantive talks unless there is acceptable progress on decommissioning and for his assertion that substantive talks can start without the involvement of the provisionals?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I gave that assurance. A certain amount of turmoil resulted from a remark that I made when doorstepped a couple of days ago. I have looked at the transcript and it seems entirely orthodox, and in fact rather trite. It was put to me that Mr. McGuinness has said that there was not a snowball's chance in hell of decommissioning until a political settlement had occurred—to which I replied, if that was the case, the political talks process would continue in the absence of Sinn Fein. I cannot believe that anybody in the House wishes that I had replied otherwise.

Dr. Hendron: Does the Secretary of State agree that the peace process cannot be considered meaningfully without taking account of prisoners? I make no apology for raising this matter over and over again. Many believe, as I do, that Private Lee Clegg will be released shortly. If that happens, will the Secretary of State ensure that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons, who did not kill anyone, will be released forthwith? While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing that, will he consider the question of Irish prisoners in Britain, have them returned to Northern Ireland and look with generosity at the whole question of republican and loyalist prisoners? Some of us, at least in Northern Ireland, could truly say that there but for the grace of God go I, depending on the environment at that time.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman raises five or six items, on each of which, perfectly properly, he feels strongly. He cannot expect me to deal with them all.
It is extremely important to note the distinction of the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State under statute in the case of a power to release upon licence someone who has been sentenced to life imprisonment, and the absence of any jurisdiction on the part of the Secretary of State to second-guess the finding of a court as to guilt or innocence.
I must not comment in response to the hon. Gentleman's question upon the other case that he mentioned, and I do not propose to do so. These matters arouse great passions and feelings and it is important that they should be dealt with in a cool and analytical way. That is not to ignore the human aspects of any of them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept an endorsement of his remarks following the death of Senator Gordon Wilson, whose contribution to an end of violence was an example to all people? Will he accept also that although there is reason to be cautiously pessimistic about the continuation of the period of no more deaths since the tragic murder of Frank Kerr of Newry, Gordon Wilson's courage in meeting the IRA, although he thought afterwards that it had been a failure, may have been one of the triggers for success?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I think that anyone who knows the family of Senator Gordon Wilson, or even of it, will wish to extend profound sympathy to his widow. He was a wonderful man. He left no avenue unexplored in a search for peace

after having demonstrated most extraordinary human qualities following the death of his daughter in Enniskillen.

Ms Mowlam: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, pay tribute to the life and work of Gordon Wilson and offer our condolences to his wife, Jean? My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is not with us this afternoon because he is attending Gordon Wilson's funeral in Enniskillen on behalf of the Opposition.
Does the Secretary of State agree that political progress will be achieved only through dialogue, and that it is imperative that all parties involved avoid vetoes and retain flexibility to create a climate in which progress can be made on the basis of the joint framework document?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, we would like to offer warmest congratulation ns to the hon. Lady on her marriage. It is important in politics, as in marriage, to seek consent and to try to avoid imposition. It is by that simple rubric that both in our marriage and in our politics the Government will proceed.

Mr. Robathan: The House knows how well my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his team have done in carrying forward the peace process. However, should some or all terrorists return to violence, is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure the House that the security forces are in a position to reinforce as necessary, that their intelligence is up to speed and that they will not be taken by surprise should there be a return to violence?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend raises important questions. I can answer in the affirmative. Nothing that has been done to adjust the security response to the threat since the ceasefires is irreversible. There can be a reverse in a short number of days, and that is important. Of course we want to reach the point when, by actions as well as words, we can be confident that the permanence of peace is what is truly intended.

Human Rights

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new proposals he has to legislate for human rights in Northern Ireland. [29804]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is my intention that legislation on the general lines of the Race Relations Act 1976 should be introduced in Northern Ireland. We will also be considering, in the context of the talks process, how civil, political, social and cultural rights might best be further protected.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful for that answer. May I urge on the Secretary of State that he and his Department give careful thought to the possibility of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which could go some way to reassure all sections of the community that in the future, whatever that holds, civil and human rights will be preserved and enhanced?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long taken close interest in these matters. We have said for a long time that we would be prepared to enhance protection for human rights in Northern Ireland. There is obviously a passage in each of


the framework documents that bears upon that. If all the parties were to agree that the best means of such protection were a Bill of Rights, the Government would obviously take account of that view in the light of prevailing circumstances. At this juncture, we would not wish to rule anything out or in.

Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important human right of all is the right to life? Is not it remarkable that there has been freedom for such a long time from sectarian killing and destruction in Northern Ireland, a situation that many people thought would never happen? Is not that due in large measure to the brilliant negotiating skills of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. I do not believe that any body of opinion in Northern Ireland would disagree with what he has said, both as to the Prime Minister's skill, and certainly his commitment, and as to the level of surprise that what has come about in the past 10 months has occasioned. The right to life is the most fundamental human right of all, and one must always continue to stress that, not least when discussing the activities of people who presume to impose punishment without charge, without trial and without appeal.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State confirm for the record that the Ulster Unionist party tabled specific and detailed proposals for a Bill of Rights at the very start of the 1992 inter-party talks and was the only party to do so, but that neither the Irish Government nor the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party showed any interest in discussing those proposals?
In the light of the decision by the IRA's northern command to embark upon what it calls "a rolling resumption" of violence, how does the Secretary of State envisage that he will be able to sustain human rights for the greater number of people in Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: First, I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's party did introduce substantial proposals for a Bill of Rights. I readily acknowledge that. The question of a Bill of Rights gives rise to an interesting debate, which is not all one way but, as I said, and I now repeat, if everyone agrees upon it, that will obviously weigh heavily with the Government.
As to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting my right hon. Friend last night and making him aware of information that has come to him. That is the only source of such information in the Government's possession at the moment, but I simply say that if anyone in Northern Ireland has any intention to return to violence, that will meet with outrage from the people of Northern Ireland. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the security forces will take all appropriate precautions to ensure that it is thwarted.

Mr. Mallon: I associate myself with the remarks about Senator Gordon Wilson, who was a friend and a colleague and someone for whom I had enormous respect. That is also the view of my colleagues.
Does the Secretary of State agree that in any society based on human rights there are two principles—one is the principle of equality before the law and the other is

the principle that those who govern and those who are governed at all times and in all circumstances uphold the primacy of the law?
Does the Secretary of State further agree that if he makes a decision in the Clegg case, an Executive decision made by a politician on the advice of civil servants, which overrules a decision of the Northern Ireland High Court, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, that, in effect, will devalue and demean the whole process of law in Northern Ireland?
Will the Secretary of State accept from me that at this moment that would be tantamount to throwing a lighted match on to a tinder-box in Northern Ireland and, moreover, would rub salt in the wounds of those who have served long sentences according to due process, not according to Executive decision? Will the Secretary of State answer that? Does he uphold the primacy of the law and will he in this case?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course I will. I have no intention of overruling, nor have I any jurisdiction to overrule, the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal, or the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman is confusing that notion with the concept of the jurisdiction that Parliament has conferred upon the holder of my office—as it has conferred it on the Home Secretary in Great Britain—to deal with the question of whether a sentence for life should mean for the whole of someone's natural life or not. I imagine that there are many people in prison of whom the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge—though very little sympathy, I feel sure—whom he would not wish to see languish in prison for the rest of their natural lives simply because that is the character of the sentence that has been imposed upon them. He can be perfectly certain that any individual case that falls within my jurisdiction will be dealt with in the best way that seems to me to accord with the rule of law and the jurisdiction conferred upon me by Parliament.
At the risk of going on for too long—I hope I am not—I can say that of course we uphold the concept of equality before the law. That does not mean to say that every individual case receives equal treatment in terms of years or whatever. It means that the same considerations are applied, but does not mean that the identical result appears in every case. If that were the case, the individual circumstances would be neglected

Ms Mowlam: In view of the breadth of the issues that have been raised in the House this afternoon, and the strength of feeling about decommissioning and prisoners, would the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House to bring those matters up in his discussions with the Tanaiste tomorrow and tell the House a little more about the nature of the study group set up with Dublin following the Cannes meeting earlier in the week?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The proceedings of intergovernmental conferences are always confidential and I think that it is right that they should remain confidential. It is very important that the two Governments, who have now established a long practice and experience of talking freely and frankly with each other, should be able to do so in circumstances of confidentiality. Most things that are relevant to the jurisdiction of each Government get discussed.

Education Plans

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for future relations between grammar schools and education and library boards. [29805]

Mr. Ancram: The Government have proposed that the recurrent funding of voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland should in future be undertaken by the education and library boards. No change is proposed to the governance of these schools, which will remain under the sole management of their boards of governors. Representations on these proposals have been received and will now be carefully considered before any final decisions are reached.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that some people on the governing bodies of the grammar schools are concerned that the relationship that they have had with the Department may alter, especially in the light of those grammar schools which are already controlled by the boards? When a board, in the case of, for example, Wellington college, recommends a major modernisation, the Department sets it aside and cannot even yet tell us when it will get the funding to upgrade that school's premises.

Mr. Ancram: I have had representations from a number of quarters, including representatives of the Governing Bodies Association and from far further afield. I will wish to take full account of those representations including, I should add, representations from the hon. Gentleman's party, which supported the proposals. I wish to take all those representations away and give them the fullest consideration. In the proposals, we were seeking an administrative simplification of the system, not to alter any of the relationships in terms of control. Were I, following my consideration of the representations, to think that the proposals were going further than intended, I would take it into account.

Inward Investment

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his current assessment of potential inward investment to Northern Ireland. [29806]

Mr. Ancram: The climate for investment in Northern Ireland from overseas has been greatly enhanced by a sustained absence of violence. It is expected that a continuation of peace will result in an increased flow of inward investment.

Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply but, in the context of his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), is he not deeply concerned about the gross inequality in the distribution of job creation in Northern Ireland? The southern part of Northern Ireland has been neglected by inward investment projects. He will be aware that, for the years 1990 to 1995, 39 projects were created, but none in my constituency of South Down; in fact, only 3 per cent. of the inward investment visits of the past 10 years have come to South Down. Will the Minister take direct action to redress that inequality through a new inward investment strategy, allied perhaps to a decentralisation of jobs from Government Departments to the more rural areas?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for that particular aspect, but I shall certainly

ensure that Lady Denton is made aware of his remarks. He will have heard me say that it is very much the intention of the Government to ensure that the benefits in terms of inward investment which will, we hope, flow from a sustained peace will be shared by all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. That deals with the sort of points that he raised.

Rev. William McCrea: Surely the Minister can understand the feelings of a number of hon. Members considering the inequality of the distribution of prosperity and jobs, bearing in mind the fact that very little has been directed towards the likes of Mid-Ulster. Prosperity and jobs have been directed to the Foyle constituency or to Belfast, West, to the neglect of Belfast, East and the constituency that I have the privilege to represent. Surely there should be proper equality of distribution. Bearing in mind the shots that were fired in Downpatrick last night, does the Minister agree that it is only with a clear renunciation of violence and the proper decommissioning of weapons that we shall make real progress in the Province?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has already heard what I had to say about the importance of peace in terms of achieving the type of inward investment that we want. I hear what he says and he has heard what I have to say about trying to ensure that the benefits of peace are enjoyed across the community. Clearly, in terms of inward investment, there has to be some recognition of the fact that those coming to invest will be attracted to certain areas. The job of the Government is to ensure that, as far as possible, the areas that require investment are given sufficient exposition to make them attractive to investors.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that, although inward investment in the retail industry is welcome in that it increases choice, what Northern Ireland really needs is more investment in manufacturing industry? Will he therefore support the efforts made recently in Washington and at the earlier conference in Belfast to ensure a significant increase in investment in manufacturing industry, not only from the United States but from Great Britain and further afield?

Mr. Ancram: We are as aware of the importance of trying to attract manufacturing industry, with its export potential, as of the other basic industry which is clearly going to flourish—tourism. There has to be a balance to ensure that the benefits of the prosperity that can be achieved through peace are spread as widely as possible.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that inward investment in Northern Ireland is greatly encouraged by the fact that we have not signed up to the social chapter or the minimum wage?

Mr. Ancram: I could not have put it better myself.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister agree that job retention and job creation are a crucial part of economic development in Northern Ireland? In that context, is he aware that the recent round of compulsory competitive tendering in the Down Lisburn health and social services trust resulted in the loss of 55 jobs and that more than 80 per cent. of those affected were women? That is a pattern repeated in trusts all over Northern Ireland and is a direct result of the Government's policies. Is the Minister aware


that we have recently been advised that the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines, which are intended to ensure that departmental policies have no adverse impact on, among other things, one gender as compared to another, do not apply to market testing in the health service? Does he accept that it does not help—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman relate his question more to inward investment, which is what it is all about?

Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that it does not help inward investment policy for the Government to be seen to be ignoring their own PAFT guidelines?

Mr. Ancram: I find it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's question to inward investment, so I can reply only that the inward investment in health goes to patients, to ensure that they get the best care possible.

Integrated Education

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government policy on, and progress towards, integrated education in Northern Ireland. [29807]

Mr. Ancram: The Government remain fully committed to supporting the development of integrated education and have recently approved proposals for a further four grant-maintained integrated schools. In addition, I have approved a proposal for an existing controlled primary school to become a controlled integrated school from next September. That brings to 28 the total number of integrated schools in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Barnes: The Minister will be aware that a survey showed that only 12 per cent. of Catholic and Protestant students at Queen's university had friends from the other community. However, the figure for Lagan college is 44 per cent. That makes a solid case for integrated education. I am pleased to hear about the measures that the Minister has mentioned, but is there not a case for turning mobile provision into permanent schools and for adding to capital investment in new schools?

Mr. Ancram: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers, may I ask that conversations be a little less noisy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well to say, "Hear, hear," but you are all having very loud conversations.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for Government policy. We have long recognised the important role that integrated education can play in bringing the two parts of the community together. Indeed, in the schools that I mentioned in my answer about 5,000 pupils are now involved in integrated education. At the moment, the impetus comes largely from new integrated schools being set up, but the Government want to encourage existing schools to become integrated. I was delighted to be able to announce in my answer that that had happened recently with one primary school—it is in Portaferry—and I hope that there will be many more such schools.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I commend the Government on their work in that important area and encourage them to press on. Is the Minister aware of the 1991 report that

says that children who attend such schools are unlikely to become involved with paramilitary organisations when they leave?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There is no doubt that the more that children from both parts of the community are encouraged to get together at an early age, not only through integrated education but through other policies such as education for mutual understanding, the less likely they are in future to succumb to the sort of divisions to which their parents have succumbed.

Democracy

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to make a start on restoring accountable democracy to the people of Northern Ireland. [29808]

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Our aim is to strengthen accountable democracy through local institutions allowing all elected political representatives to exercise local responsibility and accountability—the sooner the better. But that should take place on a basis that has first been agreed through political dialogue involving the main Northern Ireland parties.

Mr. Molyneaux: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am reluctant to interrupt the conversations to which you referred earlier, Madam Speaker, but perhaps I have your permission to do so. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Come along now, let us have some order in the House. It is all very well hon. Members giving me their support when I ask for order, but it does not happen.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am indebted to you, Madam Speaker.
As the four constitutional parties have been engaged since 14 July 1987—eight years ago—with the Secretary of State and his two distinguished predecessors, does he feel that he can now proceed to reward those parties and that ministerial diligence and patience by giving us at long last some real influence over the affairs of our Province?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That would be well deserved indeed, but it must be done on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the other parties—[interruption.] I knew that that would receive approval. It must be done on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman and the leaders of the other parties have agreed; otherwise, if I seek to impose it, it will not stick. So I welcome the evidence that the right hon. Gentleman and the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party are beginning to come together.

Arms Decommissioning

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of arms and explosives held by paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. [29809]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The Government have made clear the practical necessity for progress in the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in order to build an adequate foundation of trust and confidence for inclusive political talks. The exploratory dialogue continues to provide the right forum in which to discuss these issues.

Dr. Spink: I am grateful for that robust response. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue to be guided by the three-point plan which his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his Washington speech? The three points are that there will be clear agreement on the principle of decommissioning, that there will be agreement on the means by which that decommissioning will be achieved and that there will be practical evidence that the decommissioning is under way.

Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. I can assure the House that the Government have no intention of departing from those three conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29831]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mitchell: The President of the Board of Trade said on radio yesterday that the Prime Minister consulted him about his barmy decision to hold a leadership lollipop scramble. Is that correct? If it is correct, is it not rather like inviting Lucrezia Borgia to provide the wine at the party?

The Prime Minister: The fact is that I informed my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the absolute horror with which the one third of the north-east's GPs who are currently budget holders will greet Labour's proposals? Do not the proposals show that the Labour party is completely against any form of success and innovation?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. Everyone in the House wishes to ensure that the national health service is successful, and that it can continually provide a better service and treat more patients. I do not believe that the proposals introduced by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Opposition spokesman on health, will achieve that.
There have been enormous changes in the NHS reorganisations and Labour should be wary of threatening more wholesale organisational change.
[Interruption.] I am interested to see that Labour Members disagree. Those were not my words but the words of the Socialist Health Association.

Mr. Blair: As we now know that the former Secretary of State for Wales strongly disagreed with the whole

direction of Government policy, should he not have resigned from the Cabinet a long time ago, irrespective of the leadership issue? If that is right, should not the present members of the Government who, we well know, agree with the former Secretary of State for Wales also resign?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) resigned from the Cabinet because he was devastated that I had resigned as leader of the Conservative party.

Mr. Blair: I wonder whether that is the view of all the members of the Cabinet; I rather doubt it. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying that the leadership election would clear the air? Surely all that has become clear is the divisions, the hatred and the anarchy that exist within his party. Is it not the case now that whoever leads the Conservative party will, in effect, lead not one party, but two? Those divisions can never be reconciled.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman certainly has a cheek, since 40 per cent. of his party voted against him when he was elected leader recently. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, said 1 million. I did not realise that a million people voted against the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps they did.

Sir Teddy Taylor: To be serious, does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most worrying aspects of the leadership contest is that it is distracting attention from the remarkable technical and engineering achievement of the reopening tomorrow, only three weeks after a devastating fire, of Southend pier? Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a spirit of unity, prepared to congratulate the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative councillors of Southend-on-Sea, who have worked in the spirit of the battle of Britain to restore one of Britain's great national assets?

The Prime Minister: I enjoy the odd battle myself, so I am entirely happy to congratulate my hon. Friend and all those whom he mentioned on the success at Southend pier. It is amazing what can be done under good government.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29832]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister tell us what word he would legitimately use to describe those Cabinet Ministers who, while professing loyalty to him, are setting up telephone lines in campaign offices for the second round of the election?

The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of that. I can say that the speed at which these matters can be done is a tribute to privatisation.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Julian Brazier.

Mr. Brazier: rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. This is great fun.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why it is that, of the 10 cases considered earlier this month


by the Northern Ireland review board, nine, including a number of former IRA and Ulster Defence Association terrorists, have now been told the outcome of their review at least in outline? Why has Private Lee Clegg alone not been told the outcome of his review and when is he likely to be told?

The Prime Minister: Any decision in the case of Private Clegg, first, will be reached as soon as possible and, secondly, will be advised to Private Clegg before any further statement is made.

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29833]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Tyler: If the Prime Minister is so keen to avoid prejudging the outcome of the Scott inquiry, why does he keep suggesting that he and his colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have no case to answer? Is it not now time to put up or shut up?

The Prime Minister: I set up the Scott inquiry and I have made the point repeatedly that I will consider the Scott inquiry when it has reported. I have no intention of being tempted down the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29834]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Sir Peter Tapsell: May I ask my right hon. Friend, to whose support as leader of our party I am fully committed, and before the long years that lie ahead in which he should have ample time to give me a job, whether, in view of Chancellor Kohl's ardent, continued support for a single currency or a core currency, both of which would of course be dominated by Germany, my right hon. Friend will ensure that, as leader of any Government whom he heads, no decision will be taken to join either of those organisations until the British people have been given an opportunity to say whether they regard it as being in their long-term interest by means of a referendum?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's offer of support, which has been made both publicly and privately, and I welcome that.

Hon. Members: What about a job?

Madam Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: On a referendum, let me set out the position for the House. The first thing of course would be for the Cabinet to determine whether the country should enter into a single currency. If the Cabinet decides that it does not believe that it is right to enter into a single currency, the question of a referendum does not arise, although, as I have said in the past, were the Cabinet to decide that it did wish to proceed, as my hon. Friend says,

there would be a serious question to be asked about a referendum. I repeat what I have said in the House before: I do not propose to rule one out.

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29835]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: In the course of his busy day, has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the Employment Select Committee report on the pay and remuneration of people in the gas, electricity and water, now privatised, utilities? Is that not a disgraceful example of greed, and is it not high time that he took action to curb those pay increases, or is it that perhaps he is looking, if the worst comes to the worst, to move to the City with a pay increase?

The Prime Minister: I have no intention of responding at all to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which, knowing him, he may come to regret in due course.
On the Select Committee's report, no, of course I have not had the opportunity of reading it in full yet, but I understand that, like me, it believes that pay rises and remuneration packages should be justified by company performance and affordability. But from what the hon. Gentleman says, it is clear that he speaks for the bulk of his party and that Labour's industrial policy is becoming clearer. It will be, yet again, the Whitehall-knows-best attitude, a commissar in every boardroom and no changes from what we have seen in the past. So much for the charade of ditching clause IV.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend find time to consider the remarkable similarity between Henry Ford and the new model Labour party? He may recall that Henry Ford said that one could have any colour for one's car, provided it was black. The new-look modern Labour party says that one may have any candidate one wants, provided she is female, particularly if she happens to be the chairwoman of Lancashire county council.

The Prime Minister: There is, of course, in addition to those similarities, one difference, I suggest to my hon. Friend: persistently, Henry Ford tended to win.

Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29836]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hoon: In the light of the recent local and by-election results, what advice would the Prime Minister give to those Conservative Members who try to get mortgage protection insurance, only to be told that their future career prospects are so uncertain as to be uninsurable? Has the Prime Minister tried to get such insurance lately?

The Prime Minister: No, I have not, nor do I need it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend recall the time under the last socialist Government when Britain was regarded as the sick man of Europe and we could take only £50 on each trip abroad? Does he


agree that the Government should retain the influence of this country in the rest of the world and not close off any options in relation to Europe or elsewhere before we need to do so?

The Prime Minister: I certainly recall the time when we could take only £50 abroad on holiday under the last Labour Government. Of course, that point is not that relevant because under the last Labour Government very few people had £50.

Q7. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 June. [29837]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAvoy: When speaking to Tory party chairmen recently, the Prime Minister resorted to the language of Gerald Ratner in describing the processes of the European

Union. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and the Tory Government are also trying to sell cheap and tawdry products to the British people? At the next general election, under whatever Tory leader, the Tories will pay the same price as Gerald Ratner.

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to a private remark that appeared to have been bugged by the BBC at some stage over the weekend. I have learnt that, from time to time, one mike can be left on by mistake. However, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he take no notice of that. He should concentrate on the fact that under this Government the changes that we have seen in prospects and prosperity for the future are greater than any that we have seen for many years. Not within his adult lifetime has this country ever faced the benign economic prospect for the future that we can today honestly offer the British people.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 JULY—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Public Service or Private Markets in Healthcare: the Choice before Britain" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 4 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures:
Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords]
Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [Lords]
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [Lords]
Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
THURSDAY 6 JULY—Motions on the structural and boundary change orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 7 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
MONDAY 10 JULY—Opposition Day [16th allotted day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committee will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 5 July, as follows:
European Standing Committee B, European Community Documents 6398/94 relating to cinema and television films; COM (94) 523 relating to films policy.
[Wednesday 5 July:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 6398/94, Cinema and Television Films; COM (94) 523, Films Policy. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-xx (1993–94), HC 48-xxvi (1993–94); and HC 70-xix (1994–95).
Thursday 6 July:
Structural and boundary change orders—Relevant orders: Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order; Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order; Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order; Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order; Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order; Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order; Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order; East

Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Changes) Order; Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order.]
In the following week, the provisional proposed business is: on Monday 10 July and Tuesday 11 July, the 16th and 17th allotted Opposition days; on Wednesday 12 July, the debate that I have already announced on the economy; on Thursday 13 July, subject to the progress of business in another place, consideration of any amendments that may be received to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill and the Criminal Appeal Bill, and, in addition, the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order will be set down for consideration; and, on Friday 14 July, private Members' Bills.
The House will have noticed that there is rather more business that may run after 10 o'clock in this statement than has been customary in recent months. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge and, indeed, accept that that is not unconnected with the indication that I am able to give the House that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess on Friday 21 July.

Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information on future business as far as he knows it? On this somewhat momentous day, will he join me in asking you, Madam Speaker, as the first woman to occupy your position, to send a message of congratulations on our behalf to Lisa Clayton, the first British woman to complete a lone, non-stop, around-the-world voyage in her boat, the Spirit of Birmingham?
On the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given us, what is the status of the business that he has announced, especially from Tuesday onwards? Is that business provisional and conditional on the outcome of the Conservative leadership election, or does he speak with the authority of both candidates? If so, will the economic debate, which he confirmed will take place on 12 July, be a new Budget debate and would he care to speculate on who might open that debate for the Government?
Also, in view of the contempt shown for the House by the Prime Minister and others last Thursday, what steps will the Leader of the House take to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of the constitutional implications of any uncertainty that may arise next Tuesday as a result of the Conservative leadership ballot, especially in the event of a second or subsequent ballot, or, indeed, of the Prime Minister receiving only a bare and unconvincing majority?
Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that, constitutionally, the Prime Minister should be able to command a majority in the House and the support and confidence of the country, and that what the British people want is not an internal contest in the Conservative party, but a general election?

Mr. Newton: I think that I can deal with all that relatively easily. First, on the hon. Lady's initial request that you, Madam Speaker, should convey the congratulations of the House to Lisa Clayton, I am sure that that would command unanimous support. As far as the rest of her questions are concerned, I shall say simply this. I understand why she felt that she had to ask them, but they are pretty silly questions and I do not intend to answer them.

Mr. Michael Alison: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1267 on the prosecution of British paedophile tourists, which has been signed by at least 140 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House and is likely to acquire further signatures in the next few days and weeks?
[That this House notes that over 300 members from all parts of the House have recently expressed their deep concern at reports about citizens of developed countries travelling overseas as tourists to procure child prostitutes and pornography in poor countries in Africa, India, and Asia; noting further that the Governments of Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America have legislated, or are in the process of legislating, to give their domestic courts jurisdiction to prosecute such residents and nationals for sexual offences inflicted on children abroad; further noting that prosecutions under such legislation have proved feasible, urges Her Majesty's Government to give British courts extra-territorial jurisdiction for prosecuting such offences committed by British nationals abroad either by enacting the Private Member's Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill [Lords], or by introducing a comparable government measure.]
In particular, will my right hon. Friend note the two options at the end of the early-day motion, including the possibility of the Government introducing a measure that would give effect to its aims? Could he arrange for the Home Secretary to monitor progress on the Bill and, if necessary, make a statement in the House about what Government action may be forthcoming?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the Government share his concern about the activities of western tourists travelling overseas to procure child prostitutes and are considering whether effective measures could be taken to tackle that problem. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will look carefully at both the suggestions in the early-day motion and the remarks that my right hon. Friend made.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: First, will the Leader of the House confirm that the 16th and 17th Opposition Supply days that he announced will give him an opportunity to allow my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats to choose the subject for one of those two days, as it is now time that a Supply day was allocated to one of the minority parties? Secondly, will he look at the possibility of bringing forward at an early date a by-election writ to fill the vacancy in Littleborough and Saddleworth? If that is not done before the summer recess, it will leave electors in that constituency unrepresented for an untoward period of time. Thirdly, will he look at early-day motion 1258 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1476), dated 8th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th June, be annulled.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order contains detrunking orders for a raft of roads throughout the length and breadth of Scotland and it would be to the advantage of hon. Members on both sides of the House if we could debate that important order before the summer recess.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the last matter that he raised is for discussion through the usual channels and I am sure that he is pursuing that. The second matter is clearly not for me to discuss on the Floor of the House, but I shall bring his remarks to the attention of those who may be concerned with moving the writ. On his first question, the answer is yes. My only doubt is how those two days will be allocated among the various Opposition parties.

Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1322, in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and a number of other less significant Members of Parliament, seeking the dissolution of Parliament?
[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows: 'Most Gracious Sovereign We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to seek Your Majesty's agreement to dissolve the present Parliament so that the British People may decide, through the ballot box, in a general election, which party should form a government, led by a Prime Minister who would be the leader of that party'.]
May we have an opportunity to consider that and to refresh our memories that no such motion appeared when Lord Callaghan replaced Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, so that we can demonstrate the monumental humbug of Opposition Members?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend uses very direct language. Although I am accustomed to putting matters in a more circumlocutory way, I agree with him.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 1300?
[That this House warmly welcomes the stepping up of the campaign by the non-party political group, the Families of the Disappeared, to put increased pressure on Sinn Fein/IRA to release details of those killed by the Provisional IRA and buried in unmarked graves; supports this group's sole objective of allowing the relatives of the disappeared, who number at least 12 people, to bury their loved ones with Christian dignity; welcomes the public pleas of many, including President Clinton, to Sinn Fein/IRA to accede to this basic humanitarian demand; notes that, as a result of these appeals and the excellent campaign of the Belfast Telegraph on the issue, Sinn Fein has acknowledged the aims and validity of the campaign by the Families of the Disappeared but have so far failed to provide any significant information; and further notes the campaign's decision to popularise the wearing of light blue ribbons as a symbol of hope.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time to discuss the impact of the peace process in Northern Ireland on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland? The early-day motion shows that the families of the disappeared, just like in El Salvador, would like the bodies of their loved ones returned for a decent Christian burial. Is he aware that when I was in Belfast last week, people told me that, on the streets of both west and east Belfast, people are still being beaten up by paramilitaries in an abandonment of the rule of law, which should cover the ordinary people of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? May we have a debate to stop the expulsions from Northern Ireland by paramilitaries of people whose lives they think they can govern? When may


we debate the return of the rule of law to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, so that they can have a peace that is not just a peace process at national level, but peace on the streets of their towns and cities?

Mr. Newton: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have a great deal of sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that I announced Northern Ireland business for next week, including a motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order, when it may be possible for him to make some of those points. On the first part of his remarks, I am sure that the whole House will join him in supporting the call expressed in the early-day motion for the return of the remains of those abducted and killed by terrorists to their loved ones.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the organisation and financing of local government, so that I can bring before the House the resentment of my constituents in Ealing, North at Ealing Labour council's sacking of teachers, home helps and other people with essential jobs in the community, while it has some £39 million in the kitty for other purposes? My constituents bitterly resent that and the House should know how Labour is behaving in local government in Ealing.

Mr. Newton: There is of course a debate in the House tomorrow on the conduct of local government and, in the light of what my hon. Friend said, I would hope that he might seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I speak as a signatory of early-day motion 1322, and as one who has, I should think, made a far more significant contribution to democracy than the rather elderly hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). Why does not the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House about the current rabble, called a leadership election? Does he not agree that the British people have a right to elect their Prime Minister through the ballot box, rather than leave it to a handful of people in this place, who simply want to save their own skins at the next election?

Mr. Newton: I am quite astonished that the hon. Lady should have the nerve to make that point in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said, who recalled precisely what happened when the Labour party changed its leadership in 1976.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate soon on housing, so that we can learn more about the Government's excellent proposals to bring much-needed private enterprise into Labour-dominated council estates?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that suggestion in mind, not least in view of the excellent proposals in the Government's White Paper.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange business in such a way next Tuesday, the date of the Tory leadership ballot, so that when that ballot finishes at 5 o'clock, the Division Lobbies will be made available, and those voting for the Prime Minister can go into one Lobby and the others voting for the ex-Secretary

of State can go into the No Lobby? The British people would then be able to see exactly who had voted for whom; the deceit would end and everybody would know the identity of the abstainers. There would be no secret ballot and the process would be much cleaner than the current hole-in-the-corner method, by which Tory Members of Parliament are telling journalists and others that they will vote for both candidates and have not got the guts to tell the British people what they are going to do.

Mr. Newton: Coming from the party with the trade union block vote, that is just amazing.

Mr. Bob Dunn: May I say that all hon. Members condemn agism, which is politically incorrect? The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) should be ashamed of herself.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on industrial relations, given that August will be the 17th anniversary of the start of the Grunwick dispute? That was a vicious, left-wing, union attack on a free enterprise institution. That trade union attack was led by a Mr. Jack Dromey, now representing new Labour, or is it old deceit?

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will recall, Mr. Dromey was, recently, not as successful as he would have wished, nor was he as successful as he would have wished on that earlier occasion in causing prolonged trouble to British industrial relations. The imp: Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will recall, Mr. Dromey was, recently, not as successful as he would have wished, nor was he as successful as he would have wished on that earlier occasion in causing prolonged trouble to British industrial relations. The improvement in those relations in the intervening period is a testimony to the Government's achievements.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I feel that the Lord President is unaware that the Labour party at least records the votes cast by Members of Parliament when deciding a leadership election, so that everyone knows exactly how we vote. Perhaps he ought to consider that method as a possibility for his party.
Given the shambles of the Conservative party and Conservative Government at the moment, does the Lord President think that he might be able to guarantee a debate soon on the fact that Dorset police now have to use a sponsored vehicle because they cannot afford to buy their own police cars? Does he agree with the chief constable of Dorset that it is outrageous that sponsorship is the only means by which the force can afford those cars? Does he not agree that that is such a disgraceful situation for a police force to be in, that it is high time that we had a debate about it; otherwise traders up and down the country will be sponsoring the arrest of criminals? Should that be the case, does he not agree that it is beyond belief?

Mr. Newton: If the standard of questions reflects the standard of government that we would have were the Labour party to achieve its ambitions, the prospect facing the country is indeed a depressing one.
However, the debate on the structural and boundary change orders, which I announced for next Thursday, relates to parts of Dorset.

Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on financial responsibility in the administration of the national parks, following the announcement last week that the Peak District national park is to buy the shooting rights to 1,000 acres of moorland at an estimated cost of £40,000, not for


conservation reasons, but simply to stop shooting taking place there in future? Is not that an appalling misuse of public funds and taxpayers' money, and may we have an early debate on the matter?

Mr. Newton: While I cannot promise an early debate, especially as we have just had two days on the Environment Bill, including provisions relating to national parks, I certainly hope that those at whom my hon. Friend's remarks are directed will take note of them.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1030?
[That this House, concerned at the anger felt amongst the British Sikh community about the impact on the employment prospects of Sikhs of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, introduced as a consequence of a European Directive, notes that British Sikhs have for many years been exempt from wearing hard hats in many areas, including service in the British Army and on construction sites; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce amending legislation urgently so that British Sikhs may continue to work in all non-construction employment whilst wearing turbans.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that the Government are always keen to show how they have sought to protect United Kingdom employment from the encroachment of the European Union. If that is so, why do they not do the same towards the Sikh community and seek to protect their jobs rather than witness their jobs disappearing, as they will as a consequence of that directive?

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in that matter is long established and understandable, is aware that implementation of the directive was an obligation on the United Kingdom, and obviously that has been a factor in that.

Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Leader of the House say whether the Government will make a statement on their response to the consultation document about the disposal of waste from the nuclear industry, especially the ludicrous suggestion that low-level waste from that industry should be tipped on public refuse tips, in particular the Beighton tip in my constituency, which has caused 10,000 of my constituents to sign a petition opposing that proposal? Will the Government give a clear idea of when a statement will be made and say that they will drop the nonsense of waste from the nuclear industry being put on to public refuse tips?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact date at the moment, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will make the position clear in the light of the consultation as soon as possible.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is highly unlikely that in the next couple of weeks Lord Donaldson's assessment will be concluded and the response to it given. In view of the fact that the House will go into recess shortly, will the Leader of the House approach the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that, when the recess ends, he will come to the House at an early date to make an statement on the results of Lord Donaldson's assessment of the MV Derbyshire?

Mr. Newton: Of course I will, in the usual way that I respond to the hon. Gentleman on that matter, ensure that that request is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made about the movement of nuclear materials and public safety?
In some ways, that request would relate to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) because, on Monday this week, a container with nuclear materials in it split open in an accident in my constituency in Nottingham. As a result of the investigations that have been carried out by the local newspaper this week, it appears that there is great confusion about the lines of public responsibility for such accidents, that there is no consultation with public authorities about the safest routes for the movement of such materials and that there is no public knowledge about the frequency of movements of nuclear materials through public areas. The House and the public urgently need to know the answer to those questions.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the rigour of the arrangements and various ways to ensure the safety of anything connected with the nuclear industry in this country is considerable. I am sure that, in the light of the incident that he described, the matter will be very carefully examined by my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Harry Barnes: People are interested in the poor condition of our electoral registers only when a general election is on top of us. As we are now in a position of political instability and we do not know what will happen in the future—whether, for instance, we might be moving into a general election some time soon—should we not have an urgent debate, before the House rises on 21 July, about electoral registration, which is in a bad state and should interest us all?

Mr. Newton: There will be an opportunity before too long to have what is now the usual three-hour Adjournment debate on the Wednesday before the recess, and I shall note that the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that subject then.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not a matter of urgent necessity that we debate early-day motion 1248?
[That this House deplores the decision of the Government of France to resume testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific; notes the universal hostility to that decision by the countries in that area, who form a voluntary nuclear-free zone; considers that the safety of the weapons excuse proffered by France for resuming the tests is lame because there are plenty of computer simulations of nuclear explosions available, and the same argument could be used by any nuclear state following the introduction of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty thereby destroying such a treaty; further notes that these proposed tests run contrary to the obligations entered into by nuclear weapons states at the recent Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference; further notes that the response from No. 10 Downing Street to the announcement of these tests was a pathetic absence of any criticism whatsoever; and so this House urges the French Government to change its mind and abandon these deplorable nuclear weapons tests.]
That would be particularly appropriate at the moment, as groups of children from Chernobyl are seeking aid outside the Ukraine for the thyroid cancers that they contracted after the Chernobyl accident. Is it not an act of ultimate stupidity and irresponsibility on the part of the French President to plan nuclear tests in the Pacific? Is not our Prime Minister's response weak and supine in the face of the antagonism displayed by many other states in Europe?
If France goes ahead with nuclear tests, there is a danger that we might repeat the worst peacetime contamination of the atmosphere, other than Chernobyl, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s principally as a result of Chinese nuclear tests. Other nations may follow France's example and test their nuclear weapons in the atmosphere and in the ground. Does not the threat of poisoning and polluting our planet concern not just Europe but the entire world?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with his description of the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend referred to the matter following his statement yesterday. He made it clear that the French Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the goal of a comprehensive test ban treaty, which is very much the aim of the British Government.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), can we have an early debate on the shambles of the Government's law and

order policy in the light of this week's statement by the chief constable of Warwickshire police that the police will need to charge those who make calls to the police for any attendance by police officers if the £6.5 million deficit in the police budget is not dealt with this year? That constabulary will lose 50 officers in the course of the year and it is therefore essential that the Government respond urgently to that problem.
I see the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), entering the Chamber. I hope that he realises that, unless the condition of Warwickshire police force is dealt with urgently, those police officers will remember it at the next general election.

Mr. Newton: Happily, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has now arrived in the Chamber and has heard the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am spared the task of drawing them to his attention. I am sure that he will have taken note of them.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House study the remarks of the former Welsh Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), several weeks ago when he said that the Prime Minister was building on the legacy of his predecessor? In view of that, could he arrange a debate, to start at 6 o'clock on Tuesday, about the legacy of Thatcherism?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and all Conservative Members have been steadily developing Conservative policies for some 16 years. The success of those policies—particularly in relation to industry and the economy—is, as my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago, increasingly and very clear.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

ADVICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the body ("the Panel") appointed under section 5(3), in the discharge of its advisory function pursuant to section 5(6), to advise the Secretary of State on—

(a) the effectiveness of the Scheme;
(b) the efficiency of the administration of the Scheme;
(c) the amounts of compensation set in the Tariff;
(d) the amounts of compensation set under section 2(2); and
(e) provisions made under section 3(1).

(2) The advice given under this section may be given formally or informally, as the Panel determines.
(3) Where advice is given formally, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish that advice, and to lay it before Parliament.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Panel to make a report to the Secretary of State on its work before the end of each calendar year, which shall be formal advice for the purposes of subsection (3) above.
(5) When sitting in its function as an advisory body, pursuant to this section, the Panel shall have power to frame rules regulating its own proceedings (including its quorum).'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I urge the House to support new clause 1, which would establish a proper system of independent advice to the Home Secretary about the way in which victims of violent crime are compensated. In Committee, the Minister made a number of concessions. He accepted our proposal that the adjudicators who deal with appeals should form the membership of an advisory body that would include trade unionists as well as employers and those with medical and legal experience, and he agreed that they should give wide-ranging advice, not just advice arising out of their experience on appeal cases.
So far, so good. However, the Government amendment is vague, and leaves everything to the Ministers. We are invited to trust the Home Secretary about the way in which the promise is delivered, and that is where the problem arises. The Home Secretary has demonstrated a total incapacity for seeking advice when that is necessary and for listening to advice when it is offered.
There was no lack of advice when the Home Secretary sought to change the criminal injuries compensation scheme illegally, without the blessing of Parliament. Labour told him not to do it, lawyers and victims' representatives advised him not to do it, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board told him not to do it—yet only after being dragged through the courts of the land and being told by the Law Lords that which we had told the Home Secretary all along did he finally and grudgingly accept that he was wrong.
The Home Secretary seems just as unpopular when he seeks to give advice as when he is trying to avoid taking it. Yesterday, The Guardian recorded that the Home Secretary's unilateral decision to join the Prime Minister's campaign team
was not, it was thought, greeted with much joy by the loyalists".
That seems to have something to do with the Home Secretary's response to the manifesto of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The Home Secretary said:
it is not rooted in the real world
and a few minutes later said that the manifesto
substantially reflects Government policy.
Those statements taken together sum up the state of the Conservative party, but the Home Secretary's colleagues may be forgiven for thinking that his words best describe the right hon. and learned Gentleman's frenetic, ill-judged attempt to cut the cash without proper regard for the victims of violent crime.
The amendment will not guarantee that the Home Secretary or his successor will listen, or that his judgment will improve—but it will at least ensure a statutory advice framework and that the whole system is out in the open. U-turns have been forced on the Home Secretary, which is why the Bill contains some provisions for loss of earnings and care costs arising from violent crime, inadequate though they are.
The fact remains that the Conservative party, on the Home Secretary's own figures, is cutting compensation to the victims of violent crime by £700 million over the next five years. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is still disregarding advice to such an appalling extent and has ignored the possibility of consensus offered by Labour's clear promise, "If you don't cut the cash, we won't cut the cash," we need a system of independent advice at the heart of the Bill, not just promised verbally in Committee.
On Tuesday, the Minister sought to persuade us that we can leave it to him to make sure that an advisory system is implemented according to our principles. Since then, I have seen a letter in which the Minister personally rejected the possibility of receiving expert advice. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers offered its help and advice. It sought to share its concern with the Minister in good time for him to give prior consideration to its views, instead of having a public debate.
In view of the fact that the last time the Minister ignored the association's advice, he ended up in the House of Lords losing an appeal, one might have thought that the Minister would jump at the chance. But no, the association received a letter dated 19 June from the Minister's assistant private secretary, saying in essence that the Minister was too busy.
The whole point of an adequate system of advice built into the Bill is to ensure that Ministers receive good advice at an early stage and consider it before coming forward with proposals. Hard, half-hearted, half-baked, headline-grabbing obstinacy by a Home Secretary who would not listen has turned criminal injury compensation into a live political issue, when it should be a topic for consensus.
Despite the history, we have sought to protect Ministers from their own worst instincts and the consequences of their folly, as we do in this new clause—which the Minister should accept as a positive and helpful


contribution to the Bill. It would guarantee an independent source of advice when establishing or changing tariff levels or making provision in relation to loss of earnings, special expenses or fatal cases, and in relation to other key aspects of the scheme in clause 3(1).
That is vital, to ensure that changes to the scheme are made on the basis of expert advice and that the Government do not again fall into the trap of making proposals for criminal injury compensation that are opposed by anyone with knowledge of the effect of criminal injuries on victims.
It would have been more impressive when the Minister suggested that people who deal with appeals might also offer advice if there had been anything in the Bill or in the notes on clauses provided by the Minister to suggest that was his intention. I believe that he has given some way, sensibly, under pressure from the Opposition. It would be far better, however, for the changes that we recommended to be included in the Bill so that they become clear or transparent. They should be guaranteed for the future. We should not have to depend on the Minister's interpretation being continued by future Home Office Ministers.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): There were lengthy debates in Committee about the need for an independent body to advise the Secretary of State on tariffs, the other heads of damage and the general running of a compensation scheme for criminal injuries. At first, it was suggested that yet another new body should be set up to fulfil that role. We, the Government, said that that was unnecessary, because there would already be an independent body with the necessary expertise to provide such advice—the appeals panel. We argued that it would be established to consider appeals against awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
We argued also that the panel, with members drawn from the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the medical profession, commerce and industry, the TUC and other organisations, was the ideal body for the purpose. We made it clear that we would expect the panel to offer advice to the Government on any matters relating to the scheme, both when asked for such advice and of its own accord when it felt that matters should be brought to the attention of Ministers. Although it was not necessary, we amended the Bill in Committee to provide that the scheme included provision on the giving of advice by the panel to the Government.
We want the new, enhanced tariff scheme to be user-friendly. It should be flexible and capable of responding quickly to the needs of victims or to wider interests. We do not want a scheme that is hidebound by overly detailed rules and procedures that militate against speedy reactions to needs or demands because of an imposed structure that is overly bureaucratic. We want the panel to be able to operate flexibly. We do not want to restrict its freedom of action by imposing a duty on it to advise the Secretary of State on a range of prescribed issues, especially a duty that, while clear enough about the issues to which it relates, fails to make clear by what circumstances it is triggered.
Exactly when should the panel give its advice? The amendment refers to both formal and informal advice. It is yet another recipe for internal bureaucracy. I am content

to leave the panel to provide whatever advice it thinks appropriate when it thinks appropriate, without it having to decide whether it is giving it as formal or informal advice.
The new clause would give the panel another duty. It would require it to report any formal advice that it gave to the Secretary of State. Clause 6 already contains a provision about annual reports to the Secretary of State by such persons as he thinks appropriate relating to the discharge of their functions. The report will be laid before Parliament. The scheme will make it clear that the panel will be required to produce an annual report as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. That will have to cover advice that is given in accordance with the scheme.
The panel will be free to record any other comments that it feels it right to make about the scheme and its operation. There is no need, therefore, for the part of the new clause that requires a report to be made "each calendar year". I am happy for the panel to decide how it wants to give advice to the Government. It is unnecessary to include express provision for that.
I respect the point of view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), as always, but I consider the clause to be unnecessary. We have made it clear that we shall look to the panel as a ready source of expertise and advice on any matters touching on the tariff scheme. We have made it equally clear that the panel is free to give unsolicited advice to the Government if it wants to do so. We have amended the Bill to ensure that the scheme will include provision for panel advice. We shall ensure that the scheme deals adequately with that. The over-prescriptive new clause before us is not necessary for that purpose.
The Government are interested in the contents of a new clause—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I had an excellent relationship in Committee—to which we shall be coming shortly. We shall not be able to accept the exact wording of that clause, but we are interested in its contents. We may be able to go further with it. I cannot, however, accept new clause 1. If the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw it, I shall have to ask this packed Chamber to reject it.

Mr. Michael: The Minister continues to move in our direction in accepting the nature of advice that should be given. Our concern is that that matter should be in the Bill. The issue will be pressed strongly, not just in this House but in another place. However, as the Minister has at least recognised the importance of the issues that we have raised, and that there should be such a system of independent advice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

JURISDICTION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

'.—(1) In section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (matters subject to investigation) the following subsection shall be added at the end—

(8) For the purposes of this section, administrative functions exercisable by—

(a) any Scheme manager appointed by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995;


(b) any person appointed by the Scheme Manager or the Secretary of State under section 3(4) of that Act; and
(c) any person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(3)(c) of that Act,

shall be taken to be administrative functions of the Home Office."

(2) In Schedule 3 to that Act (matters not subject to investigation), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 6B—
"6C Action taken by—

(a) a Scheme manager appointed by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 or any person appointed under section 3(4) of that Act, so far as that action constitutes a decision taken in respect of a claim for compensation; and
(b) action taken by any person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of that Act, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of an adjudicator appointed under section 5 of that Act.".'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 seeks to establish something extremely important—accountability and proper scrutiny for the administration of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Bill seems to be specifically designed to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the ombudsman, the actions of the administrative staff involved in running the scheme.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who first raised the issue in Committee and has brought to the attention of many of us who were concerned about accountability and transparency under the new scheme the importance of ensuring that the ombudsman's jurisdiction does run.
In Committee, we debated the provision which states that those appointed for the purpose of administering the provisions of the scheme which relate to the appeal system should
not be regarded as having been appointed to exercise functions of
or on behalf of
the Secretary of State".
The Opposition said that it seemed likely that that exclusion would be dangerous, and would go way beyond the Minister's intentions. The Minister said that his only intention in those words was to avoid interference by Ministers in the operation of the scheme with regard to individual cases.
It is right that Ministers should not interfere in individual cases, and that an assessment of the circumstances of a case should be made by those dealing with it administratively and by adjudicators dealing with appeals without interference from the Minister. But, as we said in Committee, why was that form of words used? Why not use a form of words that has been tried and tested? The Minister was unable to give any justification, but he said that that was the limit of his intention.
When the Bill is examined more closely, it is seen that the words have the effect, whether intended or otherwise, of excluding the administration of the scheme from the jurisdiction of the parliamentary ombudsman. In Committee, the Minister gave no suggestion that that was his intention. I am sure that he would have explained to us any such intention. Therefore, I am not suggesting that he, individually and personally, intended the words to

have the effect that I suggest they will have. But unless new clause 2 or something similar is included in the Bill, the operation of the scheme will be excluded from the ombudsman's scrutiny.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept the new clause. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East also wishes to refer to the important arguments in support of the new clause.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I support new clause 2, which extends the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to this area of government. As a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I am only too well aware of the extensive work done by the ombudsman and his team. I think that I speak on behalf of the Committee when I say that we have a most outstanding ombudsman in Mr. William Reid, and we should recognise him as such.
Last year, when the Select Committee investigated the powers, work and jurisdiction of the ombudsman, we said in our report that one of the indications of the success of that office was the fact that further ombudsmen have been established to bring the advantages of an independent and impartial investigator of complaints into other areas of public life. We went on to say that an added testimony to the office's achievements has been the gradual extension of the ombudsman's jurisdiction to more branches of the Executive.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is a case in point—the administrative actions of court and tribunal staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor now come within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. Only last year, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone), who is now the Minister for Health, successfully piloted, with all-party support, a private Member's Bill that extended the ombudsman's jurisdiction to other tribunals.

Mr. Maclean: I can well understand the intention behind the new clause. It no doubt seeks to achieve high standards in the administration of the new scheme by making the administrative actions—actions other than the actual determination of awards, for which other provision will be made in the scheme—of those running it subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, more commonly known as the ombudsman.
I make it quite clear that it is our firm intention that the new scheme should be run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and mechanisms will be built in to facilitate that. For example, the authority will be required to set standards of performance and targets, and will have to report on how it has measured up to them in its annual report. There will also be a fully developed and effective complaints procedure, enabling those who feel that their cases have not been well handled to make a formal complaint in the sure expectation that it will be speedily and properly considered, and that, where appropriate, redress will be made.
I accept, however, that there may be an argument for saying that such provisions do not go far enough, and that applicants who believe that their case has been subject to maladministration should have some means of seeking external reassurance. That is, of course, the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in other contexts, and hon. Members have therefore, reasonably enough, looked to the ombudsman in this instance.
The fact is, however, that the administration of the scheme does not currently fall within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. To give him such jurisdiction would therefore be a significant step, and one that should not be taken without prior discussion with him and other interested parties.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on the issue of discussions with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The commissioner raised the matter when he saw the Bill in draft form, because he was extremely concerned about the fact that he will not have jurisdiction in this sphere.

Mr. Maclean: I am well aware of that. I was merely suggesting that, before we lobbed all sorts of things at the commissioner, we would need to have detailed discussions to work out the whys and wherefores and where the boundaries are. If the hon. Lady will permit me to continue, she may not be disappointed by what I have to say.
We would also need to consider carefully with the commissioner the resource and other implications of such a change, and to think very carefully about what might be, and what might not be, within his remit. I am sure that we are all aware of constituents who complain persistently, and perhaps unreasonably, and who demand referral of their case to the ombudsman, no matter how carefully their complaint or grievance—whether real or imaginary—has previously been handled, and no matter how many other appeal tribunals they have been through.
We must not lose sight of the fact that about one third of the 60,000 or 70,000 people who apply for compensation each year are, quite properly, turned down on grounds of eligibility, because they provoked the assault or for some other good reason. Inevitably, a number of those claimants will feel aggrieved, even after they have exhausted the scheme's extensive appeals process. If they then feel that they can try yet another tack—perhaps complaining to their Member of Parliament and, through their Member of Parliament, to the ombudsman that their case was rejected, not for perfectly proper reasons but because of some alleged maladministration—they may well do so. That could clog the system with bogus claims, which would create a substantial extra burden, first, for the ombudsman himself,


and secondly, for the scheme's administrators, who would have to demonstrate that the real issue was one not of maladministration but of technical eligibility.
Thus, while on the one hand, I can see a need for workable and transparent checks and balances, I can also see a potential danger that such mechanisms—unless they were carefully defined—could be open to abuse. That would create a lot of nugatory work for everyone. That is why I say that we must think carefully about it and consider all the implications.
None the less, I can assure the House that, having listened to the arguments put forward and having heard other views, including those of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, we have decided that we must consider those views carefully and discuss them with him and others to see if that is a sensible route down which we should go.
In the meantime, it may not surprise the Opposition when I say that I cannot accept the technical terms of the amendment, which is technically flawed. That is not an accusation aimed at the Opposition. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will rightly say that he does not have the resources and facilities that I have to ensure that amendments are legally and technically correct. I shall not go into the reasons why it is technically flawed, but I repeat my assurance to the House that we shall consider it carefully.
There may be merit in considering the parts of the scheme that in other Departments would come within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to find out whether it would be possible to draw clear boundaries between matters that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State—the overall administration of the scheme, for example—and those that are not, and how one could clearly ring-fence other matters, such as decisions on individual claims, in which the Secretary of State would not be involved.
I hope that, on the basis that we shall carefully consider the idea with a positive attitude, the hon. Members for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth will feel reassured and will not wish to press the new clause.

Mr. Michael: Of course I am pleased that the Minister has accepted that what we seek to do in the new clause is right. I am pleased that he has promised to consider it. But that does not go far enough. He has not promised to accept the principle that the ombudsman should have jurisdiction over the criminal injuries compensation scheme, or the necessity of building it into the Bill.
The Minister says that our new clause is flawed. That is curious, because we used the wording of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. If the new clause is deficient, there must be deficiencies in the Act that the Minister appears not to have identified.
In any event, the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that we do not have the expertise of Ministries and parliamentary draftsmen—but may I point out to him that after today's debate there will be a Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, and also opportunities in Committee in the House of Lords for two days in October? There will then be a Report stage in November. Moreover, amendments are still acceptable on Third Reading in the House of Lords, so there are plenty of opportunities for the Home Secretary or his representative in another place to fine-tune what we have

proposed or to introduce changes, provided that that is accepted by those who will take part in the debates in another place.
There is therefore no reason why the Minister should not accept our new clause today, put the principle into the Bill and deal with any adjustments needed at a later stage. We want the ombudsman to have jurisdiction over the criminal injuries compensation scheme. So do the public, and so does the ombudsman. The new clause should be added to the Bill now, and if the Minister does not accept that, we shall divide the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 248.

Division No. 185]
[4.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Adams, Mrs Irene
Fyfe, Maria


Ainger, Nick
Gapes, Mike


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Garrett, John


Armstrong, Hilary
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Austin-Walker, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Barnes, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Battle, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bayley, Hugh
Gordon, Mildred


Beggs, Roy
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Betts, Clive
Grocott, Bruce


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Gunnell, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hain, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harvey, Nick


Burden, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Heppell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Home Robertson, John


Church, Judith
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Donald
Keen, Alan


Dixon, Don
Khabra, Piara S


Dobson, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Terry


Eagle, Ms Angela
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Eastham, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Etherington, Bill
Llwyd, Elfyn


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Loyden, Eddie


Fatchett, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Faulds, Andrew
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McFall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McLeish, Henry






McMaster, Gordon
Rooney, Terry


McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


MacShane, Denis
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Salmond, Alex


Meacher, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford East)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlarn, Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


O'Hara, Edward
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Trimble, David


Parry, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Pearson, Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wise, Audrey


Randall, Stuart
Wright, Dr Tony


Reid, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rendel, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carttiss, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Congdon, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Conway, Derek


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bates, Michael
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Sir Graham
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Elletson, Harold


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butterfill, John
Evennett, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Faber, David


Carrington, Matthew
Fabricant, Michael





Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gillan, Cheryl
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorst, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hague, William
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Richards, Rod


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunter, Andrew
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shepard, Richard (Aldridge-B'hills)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sproat, Iain


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stem, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, David
Sweeney, Walter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sykes, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lord, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Thomason, Roy


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thumham, Peter


Madel, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)






Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Tredinnick, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Trend, Michael
Willetts, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Dr. Liam Fox and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

PRINCIPLES

'In framing the Scheme under the provisions of sections 1 to 5 above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the general principles set out in Schedule (Principles of Compensation, Etc.) to this Act.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, a new schedule—Principles of Compensation, Etc.—

'Preliminary

1. In framing a Scheme pursuant to this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the principles set out in this Schedule.

General

2. The Scheme ought to be so framed that the compensation paid is broadly the same as that available before the passing of this Act.

Loss of earnings

3. The Scheme ought to make adequate provision for loss of earnings from the date of the injury and should make provision for those who are not entitled to state benefit during the 28 weeks following the date of injury.

4. The Scheme ought to make provision for urgent compensation in respect of loss of earnings, subject to later recovery of sums so paid out.

Special expenses

5. The Scheme ought to make provision for expenses incurred to enable the recipient to—

(a) remain in full time employment; or
(b) make use of the skills which he possesses; or
(c) be able to undertake new types of employment or retraining, where the nature of the injuries sustained prevent his continuing in his current employment.

6. The Scheme ought to make provision for amounts to be paid to offset the costs of alleviating the effects of disability.

7. The Scheme ought to make provision for reasonable child care costs, where these are incurred as a result of the consequences of the injury.

8. The Scheme ought to make provision for the reasonable costs of medical treatment or therapy where such treatment is not readily available from the National Health Service.

9. The scheme ought to make provision for reasonable expenses incurred by a person taking responsibility for the care of the victim of the injury, including provision for consequential financial detriment and loss of earnings.

Fatal injury

10. The Scheme ought to make provision for compensation in respect of appropriate funeral expenses.

11. The Scheme ought to make provision for amounts to be paid in respect of the impact of a bereavement on former dependants of the deceased person, in particular widows, widowers and children.

Interim awards

12. The Scheme ought to make provision for the payment of interim awards in cases of urgent need.

Reviews

13. The Scheme ought to make provision for reasonable time limits on the determination of reviews.

14. The Scheme ought to make provision for procedures for representation on behalf of those seeking a review of a decision.

Appeals

15. The Scheme ought to make provision for reasonable time limits on the determination of appeals.

16. The Scheme ought to make provision for appellants against a decision to enjoy rights broadly similar to those available in legal hearings.

Departure directions

17. The Scheme ought to make provision for the Secretary of State to direct, in cases involving—

(a) multiple injury;
(b) sexual assault;
(c) chronic psychiatric illness; or
(d) injuries to children

that the compensation should be calculated having regard to awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity at Common Law.'.

Mr. Michael: The purpose of the new clause and the schedule is to lay down some important principles under which the criminal injuries compensation scheme should operate. We have two main aims. First, the proposed changes will achieve the transparency that is so lamentably lacking in the Bill. We have said from the beginning that the Bill leaves far too much of the decision making in the hands of the Home Secretary and fails to include some details and principles. Time and again in Committee, we drew attention to the Government's failure to provide adequate details in the Bill.
We accept that every detail cannot be contained in the legislation; that would of course make it cumbersome and difficult to amend minor details. That is the excuse that the Minister has given on a variety of occasions for not putting basic principles in the Bill. We accept that some details can be contained in statutory instruments. The trouble with the Bill is that too many key aspects of the scheme are to be buried in statutory instruments, and other important elements, for example, in relation to reviews, appeals and time limits do not have to come before Parliament. Parliamentary scrutiny of the criminal injuries compensation scheme is of particular importance because of the history of this set of proposals and the Home Secretary's attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny, even when he needed to observe it.
Our difficulties in Committee were compounded by the fact that the Government are yet to publish the scheme, which is the subject of the Bill. Opposition amendments have prised more details out of the Minister. Indeed, on 13 June in Committee, in column 57 of the Official Report, he gave us what he called a "golden assurance" that, if provision were included in the 1990 common law scheme, the new tariff scheme would operate in the same way.
Operating in the same way as the 1990 scheme is a clear principle, but it is also clear from the Minister's other answers that people will lose out. The cutting of finances by some £700 million demonstrates that there will be changes. That will be to the detriment of some of the people who seek support from the scheme.
The failure to have the schedule in draft makes it much more difficult for the Committee, Members of Parliament and people outside the House who take an interest to be absolutely clear on what principles the Home Secretary is operating. That is not unusual. I recall the Immigration Act 1988—the first piece of legislation in which I was involved as a Whip. In meeting after meeting, we asked the Home Secretary to bring forward the immigration rules, without which that legislation meant virtually nothing. We have the same position with this legislation.
The Minister went part way by at least offering a letter to members of the Committee, together with information on the 1990 scheme and on the interim scheme that was found to be illegal, and he sidelined both those documents in such a way as to show which elements he intended to incorporate eventually in his scheme. That was helpful and I commend him for at least going part way, but he said to us that it would not be long before the scheme was prepared.
We know that the Bill will reach its Second Reading in the House of Lords in a couple of weeks. Will the Minister ensure that the scheme is published in full before Second Reading in another place? If those details are about to be prepared, presumably on the time scale in which the Minister expected to have the legislation through the House before the summer recess, will he give us a cast-iron guarantee that they will be published before the recess so that we can examine them?

Mr. George Stevenson: A golden assurance.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give us a golden assurance, as my hon. Friend suggests, that the full draft will be available to us before the summer?
This refers in a way to the previous debate, where the Minister cast aside the offer of advice from people involved in litigation by suggesting that his scheme would be available shortly and that they would be able to comment on it. There are plenty of reasons why the Minister should give us a golden promise to publish his scheme before the recess.
Publication before the recess would have a second benefit: it would enable the people who will deal with the debates and the people who will advise them in another place fully to consider the matter and the Minister's intentions before the debates in October in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading in another place. It would give an opportunity therefore for the Bill to proceed with some hope of its coming back to us, towards the end of this parliamentary Session, with reasonable amendments having been made in another place and with many of the difficulties that we have highlighted in Committee having been met by Ministers.
I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance because there is no excuse not to do so. From his own words at the beginning of Committee proceedings, it was

clear that the draft was at a complete stage in his in-tray. On the basis of his own assurances in Committee, it is clear that it would be bad faith for the Home Office not to publish the draft scheme, as well as its final draft of the tariff, before the summer and, certainly, before the debates in another place after the summer. There is no reason therefore for the Minister not to give a clear and unequivocal commitment on that aspect.
Our new clause and schedule show how the basic principles of the scheme could have been set up in legislation in the first place so that people were aware of the key elements of the scheme. That is the right way to proceed. Our proposal is transparent, clear and fair. The Minister should therefore accept those improvements, as well as promise to give us in quick time the small and more detailed elements that will be in the schedule.
Our second aim is to list some of those key principles which should be in the scheme. The first is that compensation paid under the scheme should be broadly the same as that available before the passing of the Act. From comments that have been made and quoted in the debate already, it seems that the Minister accepts that as a principle, but does he? It is crucial. In Committee, the Minister tried to tell us that victims would not lose out—which would mean accepting that principle—but the one thing that is transparent about the Bill is that the Government's key intention has been to cut the money available to innocent victims of crime.
The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill makes that crystal clear. The amount that the Government intend to save over the next five financial years is £700 million, in a drop of 40 per cent. on planned expenditure. It surely cannot be said that no one will lose out. Many victims will lose out as a result of the proposals. The victims of the most serious crimes of violence will lose out.
We have highlighted how those savings will be made: by not paying loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks, by failing to upgrade the tariff between 1994 and 1999 and by capping maximum amounts. That cap will affect a small number of people, but, again, the victims of the most horrendous injuries will suffer. Savings should not be made at the expense of individual victims.
Secondly, there must be adequate compensation for loss of earnings. A large part of the savings that the Government are generating results from the decision not to pay loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks after injury. The Minister suggested in our debate on 15 June that all the savings would be the result of that one measure alone. We do not believe that to be the case, but it is certainly a substantial element.
The Government have justified their choice of 28 weeks by pointing to statutory sick pay. The inference is that victims will be adequately recompensed during that period. That is not the case. Statutory sick pay is £52.50 a week—hardly an adequate recompense for those unable to work because of a serious criminal injury. Many people are not entitled to SSP, including the self-employed, those on a low income and those on short-term contracts. Some may be entitled to incapacity benefit, but that is no more generous than SSP. Others will get income support, but that is even less than SSP.
Some people have their SSP enhanced by occupational sick pay schemes, but there is considerable variation in entitlement from one scheme to another. It is common for five years' length of service to be a condition before a


half-year's full sick pay is given. Taking all those factors together, it has been calculated that 12 million people—at least half those in employment—do not receive full pay during the first 28 weeks of sickness and will therefore be at risk under the Government's proposals. They will be worse off.
The third principle that we want to enshrine in the Bill is proper provision for special expenses to allow the individual to remain in employment or to retrain, to provide the additional costs of alleviating the effects of disability, to make provision for reasonable child care costs and to pay for medical treatment where that is not readily available from the national health service.
The scheme must make provision for relatives or others who give up their jobs to care for the victims of crime. Very often, Ministers and others pay lip service to the carers, who are often the silent sufferers after someone suffers an accident or is in ill health. Those silent sufferers should be provided for in the scheme and that should be made clear in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister's golden assurance means that all those areas of special expenses will be covered to help those incapacitated for more than 28 weeks. I hope that, even at this late stage, he will rethink his proposals and allow expenses to be paid where appropriate when the individual is incapacitated for less than 28 weeks.
The next point of principle is that provision should be made for the impact of a bereavement on the former dependants of the deceased. I do not think that this is a matter of contention between the Opposition and the Government. It was discussed in Committee and it would be helpful if the Minister would now make his commitment clear. In Committee, he responded positively when we referred to the impact of special requirements for funerals—for example, cultural and religious requirements may lead to additional costs for a family who are already in enormous pain and difficulty because of the death of a family member. That element should be allowed for in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will make as clear today as he did in Committee his agreement with us on that point.
We believe that the ability to make interim arrangements should be clearly written into the Bill. In Committee on 20 June, the Minister admitted that the wording of the original discredited tariff scheme for interim payments was unsatisfactory. He said that it needed a tweak. It needs more than just a tweak; clear principles need to be set out in the Bill.
The new schedule makes provision for reasonable time limits for the determination of reviews and appeals. It is important that victims receive prompt and efficient treatment. Many references to the tariff scheme have suggested that speeding up the system is one of the benefits. We want to ensure that the determination of reviews and appeals, as well as the original decision, happens quickly. Victims, especially those where there are special circumstances and therefore, in many cases, special stress, should not have to wait a long time for a determination of their cases simply because they have asked for a review or for an appeal against a decision. All those principles are important in ensuring that victims receive the prompt and efficient treatment that we believe they are entitled to expect.
We have attempted to bring flexibility into the scheme. That, too, is an important principle. When we suggested improvements in Committee, the Minister said that we

were trying to constrain the scheme. We made it absolutely clear that we wanted a scheme that would respond quickly to the needs of victims and that could be flexible where necessary. I do not mean unnecessarily flexible, which might result in a long-winded system to deal with the cases that come before the body and the appellate body; we want a reasonable flexibility so that fairness can be guaranteed.
We propose that for multiple injury, sexual assault, chronic psychiatric illness and injuries to children there should be a mechanism to allow compensation to be calculated having regard to awards at common law. I think that the Minister will accept that those cases are difficult to value. That is especially true with children's cases, which do not readily fall within a tariff scheme. Complex injuries can have a traumatic effect on an individual. Those factors should be taken fully into account in decision making within the new system. We need some mechanism to ensure that awards in such cases are comparable with the awards available at common law.
We believe that the new clause and new schedule lay down clear and fair principles to underpin a just criminal injuries compensation scheme. We believe that the speeding up of matters through a tariff system that deals with the simpler cases quickly and effectively will be enhanced by building in the principles set out in the new schedule.
I commend both the new clause and the new schedule to the House.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I commend the diligent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). From the time of the original proposal by the Home Secretary to use the prerogative to destroy the 1964-based Act right through to this debate, my hon. Friend has harried the Government and made them amend many of their original proposals.
I also commend the work done in the other place. For me, it would be a happier circumstance if I could commend a second Chamber whose Members had been elected and were therefore representative rather than hereditary. However, it shows that where honest men gather the Government are tripped up and sent packing.
I declare an interest, as I am sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers. I do not represent that body with any lack of pride, although I do it with some sorrow because, on many occasions, it has been shown that the membership comprises people involved in a dangerous occupation. When, in parts of Northern Ireland, there was talk of the peace process, postal workers in Newry were being attacked and one was killed. Recently in Birmingham, while this Bill was being discussed, a postman emptying a post box was subjected to a fatal assault, just so that the attacker could rob the contents of the post box. I therefore commend the new schedule, which would provide for clearer details and more compensation for fatal injury cases.
My hon. Friend referred to the Government's proposal for 28 weeks without compensation, other than whatever might come through a Government scheme. The Government are treating the matter like a workplace injury. Of course, such an injury should not necessarily be demeaned. It is ridiculous to treat an injury that is the result of a criminal act—in the case of a postal worker, it will probably be an attempt to seize money, postal orders or some other thing in the custody of the Post Office—in


the same way as any trip-and-fall accident at work. Clearly, the Government have made no allowances for the difference. This is all about saving £700 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, regardless of the impact on the victim.
5 pm
Clearly, additional living costs and traumas come with a criminal injury that would not come with any other form of injury and such injuries should not be compensated by a tariff method. They should not be put into a banding. Although the tariff has been increased after a splendid campaign by the Trades Union Congress and other honourable people, it is not adequate and I think the Government realise that. Previous compensation schemes took into account the concept of trauma: one may get over a physical injury quickly and go back to work, but one will not necessarily get over the trauma of having been the victim of a criminal attack.
I am pleased to see some consideration for carers in the scheme in the new schedule. Often, the burden of the traumas, deterioration in life style and inability to cope with life some years after a criminal attack fall on the family and the carers. The Government take no account of that and have, in fact, ignored it, pretending that it is not real. It is as if medical science is ignored by the Government if it cannot be afforded by the Government.
I am unhappy about the fact that the Government have not considered tariff levels that would be adequate for cases of sexual criminal attacks. It is clear that they are turning away from something of which more and more people are becoming aware—that the traumas caused by a sexual attack will last for the rest of the victim's life.
The maximum awards will be capped, which will adversely affect the small number of victims with the most catastrophic injuries. It is as if the Government are saying that previous compensation was too generous—they use that word pejoratively. How can compensation for a criminal attack be too generous? Presumably, the assessments are made on the basis that the trauma, the injury and its life-long effects are such that the money paid will never rub them out but will help to make life a little more bearable—that is all that the money ever does.
The Government's proposal is not tough on crime and the consequences of crime but tough on the victims and the families of victims, especially as regards members of professions who handle money regularly and are likely to be attacked regularly. Statistics show that members of the Union of Communication Workers—formerly the postal workers—are attacked regularly. If the Government do not take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion and introduce a scheme based on the new schedule, they should be ashamed.

Mr. Stevenson: When we attempted in Committee to convince the Minister of the merits of the issues in new clause 3 and amendment No. 4, it would be fair to say that his general view was that he did not want to burden the Bill with details and minutiae. We tried to convince him that the issues were not details or minutiae but important principles. Although we accepted his argument that we were clearly not arguing for every t to be crossed and every i dotted—clearly that would be irresponsible and unrealistic—by the same token, he appears to have

gone to the opposite extreme: he views all the issues of principle that we try to incorporate in the Bill as minutiae that should be discounted.
To be fair, the Minister told us that the details would be there for everyone to see when the scheme was made available. "Trust me" was the general tenor of his proposition. Fair enough, but if we are talking about principles, why on earth can they not at least be reflected in a schedule to the Bill? What does the Minister find so objectionable about the principles to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred?
We are not talking about details and they will not burden civil servants in the Home Office, making them burn the midnight oil. They are important principles and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will reflect on that fact and recognise it. It is important for those principles to be contained in the Bill, albeit in a schedule.
In Committee, when the Minister described the Government's scheme, he repeatedly said that it is the best in the world.

Mr. Maclean: indicated assent.

Mr. Stevenson: But if the scheme is so good, why is the Minister so secretive about it? What is wrong with spelling out in the Bill the principles on which this world-beating scheme is based?

Mr. Maclean: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that, every time I said that our scheme is the best in the world, I was referring not merely to how it is administered but to the huge sums available. Financially, it is as big as the United States scheme and bigger than those of the rest of Europe put together. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extra money that we envisage making available during the next few years is spelt out in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill? That is not something that the Opposition have spelt out.

Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that important issue. I am prepared to recognise that the Government intend to cut the resources available to people injured by criminal activity by £700 million. That is part of the financial package to which he referred.
I will not be deflected from my argument. If the scheme is so good, why are the Government so secretive? The Minister has yet to answer that question, but it is a fair one. Why not list in the schedule the principles on which this so-called world-beating scheme—although it will cut £700 million from the available resources—is based?
Another significant matter that all hon. Members should consider is that the Bill is the result of Government mistakes during the past couple of years. The Government rushed through their first attempt to introduce a tariff scheme and did not consider the implications carefully enough. They had to backtrack on it because of the mistakes made, and here we are considering a revised tariff scheme. That is a direct result of the fact that the sort of principles that we want included in the Bill were not being fully considered in the first place.
One can give example after example of Acts of Parliament that the Government have bulldozed through the House without thinking them through. Minister after Minister has had to come to the Dispatch Box and do U-turn after U-turn. If the Minister would agree with us


about anything, I am sure that he would agree that the Government do not want to be in that position again; but unless those principles are contained in the Bill, we suspect that that is inevitable.
I shall deal with just a couple of issues in the time available as I do not wish to repeat what my hon. Friends have said. The first issue worth underlining is the principle of uprating contained in amendment No. 4. The new tariff scheme will be based on 1994 tariffs, will not come into effect until 1 April 1996 and will not be reviewed for three years. That means that a five-year period will pass before those tariffs are reviewed. Is that not a matter of profound principle? Will not families and everyone who is tragically injured as a result of criminal activity be interested in that? Could not the Minister reasonably seek to deal with that? Is it right that people should be faced with a built-in devaluation of the tariff award? Five years of inflation will eat away at the value of the tariff award. That is an important principle, not detail or minutiae.
The second point relates to the Government's insistence on the 28-week rule. Having listened to their arguments, I am convinced that they insist on it because it is administratively convenient—it happens to fit in with activities in other areas and it saves money. After a criminal injury, many people will have no income, other than £52 a week if they qualify for statutory sick pay, which many will not. The income of others will be dramatically reduced. Their lives will have been transformed through criminal injury and they will need support. I can think of no time when they will need that resource more than in the first 28 weeks; to deny them it during that period is the worst thing that the Government could do.
For those and many other reasons, I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will recognise the strength of the arguments in both the new clause and the amendment, and consider our points sympathetically.

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I might deal briefly with the last point the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made and the sheer illogicality of his suggestion. He said that people who receive lesser injuries and are off work for 28 weeks need support immediately after the injury or trauma. With the best will in the world, in those first, crucial, few weeks, there is no chance of anyone applying to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, completing the paperwork, being assessed and having an award made. Even the most efficient scheme in the world will take a few months to process the application, so the hon. Gentleman's argument that, by setting a 28-week threshold, we are disadvantaging people who would have had an instantaneous pay-out from the moment that they were injured does not hold water.
5.15 pm
New clause 3 and amendment No. 4 seek to prescribe on the face of the Bill some of the features of the new scheme which, although not mandatory—the Secretary of State would, in theory, have to have regard only to general principles that are cast in such terms as the scheme "ought" to make the provisions in question—would, in practice, clearly circumscribe the Secretary of State's actions. He would obviously be vulnerable to challenge if, without good reason, the scheme did not reflect each and every one of the principles.
We have a much more fundamental objection, however. I am afraid that, while we have no difficulty with some of the principles set out in the new schedule, others are unacceptable, as Opposition Members will know from the lengthy and detailed debates that we have had on the Floor of the House and especially in Committee.
I do not propose to discuss all the principles in great detail yet again. The arguments are clearly set out in the Official Report for all to see. I shall, however, mention just a few of the more unacceptable items. First is the requirement that compensation payable under the new scheme should be broadly the same as that available under the old one. We have made no secret of the fact that one of the main reasons for seeking to bring in a new scheme was to rein back the cost of the old scheme, which was rising at an unsustainable rate. It is inevitable, therefore, that we shall spend less under the new scheme than we would have under the old scheme if it had continued unchanged.
It is also clear that we shall spend huge and increasing sums of money. I remind the House and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who kept talking about cuts, cuts, cuts, that, under the enhanced tariff scheme proposed in the Bill, we anticipate that the liability to compensation in 1996–97 will rise to £175 million. In 1997–98 it will rise to £190 million—some cut. The year after, it will rise to £205 million, and the following year we reckon that it will be up to £240 million.
Under the scheme that I recommend to the House today, and which the Opposition keep saying is mean and will impose cuts, the annual liability will have risen to no less than £260 million by 2000, and the cumulative liability in the five years to then will be no less than £1.1 billion.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister agree that the words that he used were carefully chosen? He said that he anticipated an increase in liability. That is not the same as an increase in what is available to compensate individual victims of serious crime. Surely the Minister understands the difference.

Mr. Maclean: I understand the difference, but the Opposition do not. That remark is typical of them. They call for more money for individuals, but everyone will get more money. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), says that, overall, the Labour party will not spend more. "We are going to be prudent. We shall be tighter than the Tories in global expenditure terms," says the Labour party, but in every debate in Committee, it sought through its amendments to spend more money, widen the banding, increase the awards by 20 per cent. and remove the 28-week threshold.
Every argument advanced by Opposition Members in Committee and here today is to increase the amount of money available. I do not criticise that view if they want to give even more money than we are giving to victims of crime, but if that is their policy, they should have the decency to say so and spell it out clearly that, by 2000, the scheme will cost £700 million more than the £1,000 million that we estimate it will cost.
It is no good the Opposition uttering weasel words and saying, "We won't change the scheme if you won't." The Bill shows that we are changing the scheme because the


exponential growth in awards—they are rising higher and higher each year and way above inflation—is not sustainable.

Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: Once I have finished this point I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
With our new, enhanced tariff scheme, not only will liability increase each year, but we expect it to remain the most generous in the world.
The starting point for what we are doing in the Bill is the fact that, in the United Kingdom, the money paid to innocent victims of crime is as much as the whole of the United States of America, with its huge economy and large number of victims of violent crime, can muster. Little old Great Britain is paying out in compensation to victims of crime more than every other country in Europe put together.
We are usually criticised by the Opposition at every opportunity—whenever they perceive that countries in Europe are better than Britain. No one is better than the Opposition at criticising Britain for not being as good as other countries in Europe but, in Committee and on Report today, we have heard not a cheep from the Opposition about other countries in Europe. They cannot say anything, because they know that the figures I have given to the House are correct.

Mr. Connarty: I did not know whether the Minister would ever be able to stem that flow, he was getting so carried away with his own words. It is a pity that no one else believes what he says these days.
The proposed new schedule refers to fatal injury. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it unreasonable to operate a scheme that provides adequate compensation for "appropriate funeral expenses"? Does he not think it reasonable that the scheme should provide for the dependants of people such as the members of my trade union who were killed while on work duties? The cost to the state of such families falling into benefit and encountering other problems because of the loss of their main breadwinner and fathers would be offset by an adequate payment from a compensation scheme in the first place. Does not all the money come out of the same pocket at the end of the day? Compensation stops further deprivation, so does not that save the state money?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read any of our debates in Committee, he would have known fine that those commitments were given. I assured hon. Members that those who were eligible in broad terms under the 1990 scheme would be covered by the new scheme, which we intend should mirror the 1990 one. I gave the assurances sought on benefits and fatal awards. I give a similar assurance now to the hon. Gentleman about the different expenses of multi-cultural funerals.
I have no problem with some of the provisions suggested in the "principles" because I have already given the assurance that we intend to bring forward as soon as possible a scheme that mirrors the 1990 scheme in most respects. I have also said, however, that I cannot accept some of the other principles that the Opposition have proposed, which would mean spending more and more money without declaring when the bottom line would be reached.
The "principles" also suggest that loss of earnings should be payable from the date of the injury. Our scheme will make provision for the loss of earnings, so that those most seriously affected by their injury receive generous compensation. There needs to be a trigger for that, however, so that the extra help is given to the more seriously injured, and so that the authority is not swamped with a large number of comparatively small claims for loss of earnings—which are very time consuming to process.
It is not acceptable that loss of earnings should be payable from the date of the injury. That would, in effect, be a recipe for a return to the old scheme and all its attendant shortcomings. We must not forget that there is still an element for loss of earnings and the other heads of damage payable under the old scheme in every tariff award, since the tariff award was based on the median—the most typical—award for the injury concerned.
We have made it clear that we are going to pay special expenses; we have also made it clear what is meant by that term. In broad terms, it means that if something qualified for expenses under the 1990 scheme, it will qualify for special expenses under the enhanced tariff scheme. If it did not qualify under the 1990 scheme, it will not qualify under our new enhanced tariff scheme. I do not think I can make things much plainer than that. I repeat the golden assurance that I gave in Committee.
We will not extend the scope of special expenses to cover the completely new items mentioned in the schedule, which would cost a lot more money than the Opposition suggest.
In fatal cases, in addition to the basic tariff award which all qualifying claimants will receive, we shall pay reasonable funeral expenses. I confirm to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East that reasonable funeral expenses will be paid in all cases. That will reflect not only regional differences in costs, but differences in religious or cultural practices and expectations. We are, of course, well aware of the different funeral arrangements that are necessary in different circumstances and the different costs that can arise. The new authority, just like the old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will, of course, consider all claims sympathetically and reimburse reasonable expenses.
Where there was financial dependency on the victim, payment for that dependency will be payable as well as payment for loss of parental support. In that case, too, provision is generous and will be broadly in line with what is payable under the present scheme.
The "principles" next mention interim awards. Here, too, we are one jump ahead. We have made it plain that interim awards will be paid whenever it is considered appropriate.
The "principles" finally suggest that there should be a return to the common law method of assessment for cases involving multiple injury, sexual assault, chronic psychiatric injury or injuries to children. I have to say there can be no question of returning to the common law method of assessment for any class of injury.
The tariff scheme was derived from 20,000 awards made by the board. That extensive exercise showed quite clearly that it was perfectly possible to group all injuries into bands of comparable severity and to assign a typical value—the median value—to each band. We believe that the enhanced tariff fairly reflects the relative seriousness


of the injuries listed, and we see no justification for assessing the basic award other than on the basis of the enhanced tariff. If victims are more seriously affected by their injury, they will, as I have just explained, be eligible for loss of earnings and the costs of special care.
I must tell the House about the inevitable consequence of allowing individual assessment in the case of multiple injury. Most claimants—or, more probably, their clever representatives—would claim that they had suffered multiple injury. They would therefore demand individual assessment. Even where the claim turned out to be manifestly bogus, it would still take time and resources to investigate it. Our formula for determining multiple awards—100 per cent. of the tariff award for the most serious injury, plus 10 per cent. of the award for the next injury and 5 per cent. for the third—broadly reflects what happens under the present scheme and in the civil courts. I believe that it is the right way to assess those cases quickly and fairly.
In conclusion, I think our enhanced tariff scheme is already based on the right "principles". I can tell hon. Members that we hope to be able to make a draft of the new scheme available to the House shortly. It will set out more clearly and more fully just what the new scheme will cover and what it will not cover. The so-called "principles" set out in the amendment are overly prescriptive and, in many instances, unnecessary.

Mr. Michael: Could the Minister offer us a definition of the word "shortly"? That word has been used on many occasions. We were told that the Committee stage would be completed "shortly". I asked for a specific commitment from the Minister that he would publish the details of the scheme before the recess, and preferably before Second Reading in the Lords. That would enable proper consideration to be given to the details prior to the debate in the House of Lords after the recess.

Mr. Maclean: May I say to the hon. Gentleman in the nicest possible way that "shortly" means "not long"? It is my intention to publish those details as soon as possible. Perhaps I may be more unkind to the hon. Gentleman. It is a bit rich for him to ask me to define the word "shortly" and to be more specific about when I will be able to produce the details of the scheme when he has had ample time to add up the costs of his proposals.
Time after time, I have said from the Dispatch Box that we have included costs in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about cuts, but I have pointed out today that we will increase the amount of money available year after year. We expect liability to increase year after year. By 2000, we expect to be paying out £260 million as opposed to £175 million next year. We have been able to spell all that out, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and other Labour Members, although calling for more money for victims here, there and everywhere, and promising that a Labour Government would be more generous, while saying that we are mean-spirited, have never once added up the figures.
We do not know the bottom line on the hon. Gentleman's proposals, just as we do not know the bottom line on any of the Opposition's policies. That is why the Labour party has been instructed not to cost its policies—just in case some wicked Tory points out that all its promises will cost an awful lot. That is just not good enough. I call on the hon. Gentleman to state quite clearly how much his proposals would cost. We do not want to

hear the weasel form of words that the Opposition have used in the past, to the effect, "If you don't change the scheme, we won't either." I am telling him: we are changing the scheme. There it is. We have produced the Bill and we know what it will cost. What is he going to do?

Mr. Michael: I am glad that the Minister has finally come clean—he is no longer saying that the scheme will be more or less the same as the 1990 scheme. He has accepted that the compensation payable under the scheme will be cut dramatically. He is cutting the compensation available for victims of the most violent crimes. He has admitted that he is cutting criminal injury compensation by £700 million in the next five years.
How on earth does the right hon. Gentleman have the cheek to ask for plain language from the Opposition when he talks about such cuts? How can he put such contradictions before the House? How can he say, "I am not cutting anything, but I am cutting £700 million"? He made that contradiction explicit this evening.
Plain language—that will be the day, when we get plain language from Home Office Ministers. "Shortly"—when does "shortly" mean? "Shortly" might have a clear definition; it might have the definition "tomorrow". The Minister might say, "I shall publish the details of the scheme tomorrow." He might promise to publish them next week. He could have published them during the Committee stage, because we know that the document has been drafted. We know that it is there in his in-tray. We know that it is available. He has simply chosen to delay its presentation until after Committee and Report.
The Minister cannot get away with continued prevarication. He needs to publish the details of the scheme before the summer recess. It was obviously his original intention to do so, because he believed that the Bill would have passed through the House by that time. There is no excuse for his not publishing the scheme and putting the details in the public domain before debates take place in another place. It could not be plainer than that.
5.30 pm
The weasel words of the Minister, who finds it so difficult to define the word "shortly", give no satisfaction to the House. He says that he accepts some of the principles that we propose in the new schedule. I welcome the fact that he dealt positively with the matter of funeral expenses. He also tried to say that things would be broadly the same as under the existing scheme but, effectively, everything that he says is an admission that he is cutting cash for victims, although he has continually tried to say that no one will lose out.
Listen to the Minister's words during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He says that he anticipates that liability will increase in the next few years. We have always known that. An increase in liability has been predicted—although the figures are not totally dependable—by the Home Office and other organisations such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. What is being cut is the cash compensation available to individual victims of the most serious crime. Such people have been penalised by the Government.
The Home Secretary and the Minister tried to tell us that there had been a drop in crime—that crime is 5 per cent. down. The Minister knows as well as I do that


violent crime has increased by about 7 per cent., and that the criminal injuries compensation scheme deals only with the victims of violent crime—only with the victims of that increasing violence.
The Minister pulls schemes out of the bag, as his colleague the Home Secretary does. Do you remember schemes for secure places, Mr. Deputy Speaker? They were promised four years ago. Not a place has been provided. Youngsters were going to be locked up. Where are the places? What is happening? No, we get only rhetoric and talk about being tough on crime from the Government, not the action or the resources necessary to tackle the problems.
The Minister has no credibility when he tries to castigate us, when we have made it clear that we would maintain the level of compensation available for individual victims of violent crime. I said that clearly, in the words—to which I am glad that the Minister has listened, even if he has not understood—"If you do not cut the scheme, Mr. Minister, we will not cut the scheme." The Government are determined to make the victims of violent crime pay for the failings of the Conservative party in government. That is what it comes down to. That is what it is about.
Our proposal for urgent compensation in respect of loss of earnings is not as generous as the Minister suggests. We need a trigger; the trigger is the loss of earnings. Pain and loss do not start after 28 weeks. Indeed, very often pain, suffering and the problems of the individual and the family are greater during the first 28 weeks than afterwards. They are immediate. What is proposed is a cut. If the Minister is one jump ahead of the principles, if the scheme is so good, if he has the details of it so well sorted out, as he suggested, why does not he publish it? Why has he kept it secret from us? Why has he not given us the details?
Our suspicion is justified by what the Home Secretary tried to do, without being held accountable to the House—changing the scheme dramatically and downgrading all its aspects. His U-turn does not go far enough. That scheme remains in essence a serious cut in the compensation available for the people who are most injured and damaged by violent crime.
That is why, in view of the unsatisfactory response of the Minister, we shall seek to place the new clause and the proposed schedule on the face of the Bill.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 257.

5.33 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, Andrew F


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Battle, John
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Bell, Stuart
Callaghan, Jim





Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Khabra, Piara S


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell-Savours, D N
Lewis, Terry


Cann, Jamie
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Livingstone, Ken


Church, Judith
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clelland, David
Loyden, Eddie


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAllion, John


Coffey, Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Robert (North Down)


Connarty, Michael
Macdonald, Calum


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McFall, John


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
McLeish, Henry


Corston, Jean
Maclennan, Robert


Cousins, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
MacShane, Denis


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Donohoe, Brian H
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Etherington, Bill
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morley, Elliot


Foster, Don (Bath)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Mudie, George


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galloway, George
Murphy, Paul


Gapes, Mike
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Garrett, John
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


George, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Gerrard, Neil
Olner, Bill


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Neill, Martin


Godsiff, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Mildred
Parry, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Pearson, Ian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gunnell, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hain, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Harman, Ms Harriet
Purchase, Ken


Harvey, Nick
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Heppell, John
Raynsford, Nick


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Rendel, David


Hodge, Margaret
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hoey, Kate
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheerman, Barry


Hutton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Illsley, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Short, Clare


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Simpson, Alan


Jamieson, David
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Soley, Clive


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Keen, Alan
Spellar, John






Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Straw, Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilson, Brian


Timms, Stephen
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony


Turner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Ms Estelle Morris and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Eric Clarke.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Ancram, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Arbuthnot, James
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baldry, Tony
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishbum, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brandreth, Gyles
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger


Bright, Sir Graham
Gallie, Phil


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gillan, Cheryl


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Hague, William


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Coe, Sebastian
Hawksley, Warren


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Couchman, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cran, James
Horam, John


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Devlin, Tim
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)





Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont Rt Hon Norman
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thumham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Twinn Dr Ian


Moate Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Patten, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Pickles, Eric
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Dr. Liam Fox and


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

APPEALS

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert—
'(b) for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a legally-qualified chairman of that body.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 4, line 22, at beginning insert
`Subject to the agreement of the Lord Chancellor,'.
No. 3, in page 4, line 28, at end insert—
'(7A) For the purposes of subsection 3(b) above, a person is legally-qualified if he is a barrister, advocate or solicitor of ten years' standing.'.

Mr. Michael: Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3 seek to amend the Bill to ensure that appeals are dealt with properly. There has been considerable concern for a number of years that appeals should be dealt with in a proper and a transparent manner. The key sentence in the Franks report of 1957 states:
tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration".
That is a particularly important principle, but it is not observed by the Bill or enshrined in it. We made progress in Committee with regard to adjudicators' responsibilities for giving advice, both as a body and individually on the basis of what occurs in particular appeals, and to perform by looking at the wider context of the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the ways in which it must operate in order to deliver compensation to victims effectively.
However, a system of transparency has not been established. The quotation from the Franks report makes it absolutely clear that the appeals mechanism should be a proper judicial or semi-judicial approach, rather than being simply another step in the administrative process. If that principle is to be observed, it is important to establish proper machinery for appeals and adjudication, which we believe should appear in the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 states that the appointment of a legally qualified chairman of the body dealing with appeals shall be made by the Lord Chancellor. That is not a new principle and it has been established elsewhere, but it is right to adopt it in this case. The Council on Tribunals commented on the qualifications of tribunal chairmen in its model rules of procedure:
The constitution, general structure and composition of tribunals will, as a rule, be a matter for the enabling Act".
The council's advice accepts that there are exceptions and sets them out, particularly in relation to the Finance Act. That general principle is right, but is not included in the Bill's phrasing. The council added:
The division between what appears in the Act and what should appear in the rules may well be the result of Parliamentary or professional interest in the subject matter or jurisdiction; equally it may be arbitrary.

I believe that all hon. Members agree that it should not be arbitrary, but properly considered and decided by the House. The council continues:
It is usual where a presidential system is to be established for that to be done in the enabling Act, which will also prescribe the necessary qualifications for the President and his terms and conditions of service".
It is difficult to understand why that should not be the case in the Bill. In Committee, the Minister said that there would be simple cases of an abuse of process or undue delay in which there was no merit, which a single adjudicator could examine and dismiss. Even so, in the general run of appeals where there is an issue to be decided, there should be a proper tribunal, properly chaired. Above all, the chairman of the appeals body should be legally qualified in the terms of amendment No. 3, to ensure that the system operates effectively.
The Minister said that in appointing adjudicators, it was the Home Secretary's clear intention to select not just legally qualified individuals but persons experienced in employment, trade union work and medical matters. There should be that spread of experience, but it is important also that the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals should apply and that a legally qualified person should chair the appeals body to ensure that proper procedures are observed.
The principle of a legally qualified chairman is enhanced by accepting the normal practice in relation to tribunal chairmen, whereby his removal or that of other individuals should be subject to the Lord Chancellor's agreement. In Committee, the Minister said that he was keen that there should not be the remotest opportunity for interference by the Home Secretary in the body that will deal with criminal injuries compensation when the Bill is enacted and the scheme implemented. He wanted to ensure that there could not be interference by Ministers, using a form of words that—as I said earlier—was ill advised because it could bear other interpretations, such as excluding from the appeals body the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. The Minister at least paid lip service to the principle of non-interference that we seek to enshrine in the Bill.
If it is ensured that persons appointed by the Home Secretary undertake their duties under the chairmanship of the overall body of a legally qualified individual appointed by the Lord Chancellor, there can be no doubt of the objectivity and transparency of the Bill's arrangements. If the removal of individuals is also subject to the Lord Chancellor's agreement, as with other tribunals, that will provide the public with a measure of comfort and clarity, that the body will not be the creature of the Home Secretary. The amendments will be helpful to the Minister in enshrining the principle that he agreed should be the one governing appeals—objectivity and a lack of interference by Home Office Ministers. In other words, it would be a proper judicial or quasi-judicial body, whose fairness would be transparent, and the independence of the persons who made appeal decisions would be obvious. I hope that the Minister will accept these three minor but important amendments.

Mr. Maclean: Clause 5(3)(b) enables the scheme to provide for the Secretary of State to appoint a chairman of the appeals panel from among the adjudicators who make up its membership. Amendment No. 1 would


amend that power, so that any such provision of the scheme would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint the chairman. It would also require the chairman to be legally qualified, and amendment No. 3 defines "legally-qualified". Amendment No. 2 would require the Lord Chancellor's agreement before the Secretary of State could remove an adjudicator from office under the powers provided by clause 5(7).
I listened carefully and respectfully, as usual, to the hon. Gentleman's opinions, but the amendments are not appropriate to the purpose of the Bill or the scheme. The most obvious objection is that the Lord Chancellor has no direct interest in the running of the scheme. It therefore makes no sense to involve him in responsibility for appointing the chairman of the appeals panel. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will have overall responsibility for the running of the scheme, and in appointing a chairman of the appeals panel, they will have to consider wider questions about the requirements of the post in the context of the efficient running of the appeals panel and its advice-giving role to the Secretary of State.
For the same reasons, it would not be appropriate to require the Lord Chancellor's agreement to the removal of an adjudicator from office. I have no doubt, however, that we would consult the Lord Chancellor in the unhappy and, I hope, remote event that we had to consider removing a legally qualified adjudicator from office. We would also consult as appropriate on the question of appointing a legally qualified chairman. Although this does not need to be stated in the Bill, of course we would consult the Lord Chancellor as appropriate on appointing a legally qualified chairman. Such matters are part of the Government's normal modus operandi.
As to whether the chairman should be legally qualified, our responsibility is to see that the most suitable person is appointed as chairman. The needs of the scheme and the needs of victims are paramount. As the House knows, we intend to appoint adjudicators from a wide range of backgrounds. It is certainly our firm intention that the first chairman at least should be legally qualified, but it would be wrong to rule out absolutely any possibility that at some future date it might be appropriate to appoint a non-lawyer as chairman. Legal questions frequently arise in the running of the scheme, and if the chairman was not a lawyer but, for example, a doctor, we would expect him to consult the legally qualified adjudicators as necessary. But to insist on a legally qualified chairman is an unnecessary restriction.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's points, but if we accepted the amendments, they would place an unnecessary restriction on the scheme's operation and the modus operandi for appointing a legally qualified chairman and other adjudicators. I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Michael: It is intriguing that something is a clear principle when it is wanted by a Minister, but is said to introduce unnecessary restriction when proposed by anyone else. The Government are always inconsistent in dealing with such matters, as we have seen today. It is sad that relations between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor are so bad that a requirement to ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment and

removal of adjudicators is viewed as introducing convoluted and bureaucratic delay. I dare say that matters will improve in the near future.
Amendment negatived.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Howard.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment.

6 pm

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it provides for a tariff of amounts of compensation in respect of criminal injuries without flexibility in special cases, gives extensive powers to the Secretary of State to frame a Scheme for criminal injuries compensation with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny, includes provision for the contracting-out of what should be a public service function, and includes provisions to exonerate the Secretary of State of responsibility for the conduct of the Scheme.
The country knows that today the Conservative party is in a deep crisis. The people of Britain have so lost confidence in the governing party that the party has comprehensively lost confidence in itself, as well as in its Cabinet and its leader. At the heart of the crisis of confidence is the issue of trust. The Conservative party made promises during the general election campaign, which it swiftly and cynically broke. It has broken promises on
tax—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill is specific. The debate must be about the Bill and the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Straw: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My remarks are about the Bill and its contents. As I was about to say, the Bill writes into law a broken promise to the victims of violent crime. It was in the 1992 Conservative campaign guide that the Conservatives boasted of the generosity of the then common law scheme. They declared that, when a crime had taken place, the Government would give the utmost priority to supporting the victims. Nothing was said about any intention to cut or replace the scheme.
The manifesto on which the Conservatives fought and won the general election campaign promised that special attention would be paid to the needs of the victims of crime. However, the Bill cuts almost in half the compensation that will be payable, and punishes the victims of violent crime for the Government's failure to control that crime.
There are many major defects in the scheme that is before the House. There is no compensation for loss of earnings before 28 weeks, despite the fact, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has eloquently testified, that at least 12 million people do not receive statutory sick pay for the preceding 28 weeks. There is no payment for special expenses. Maximum awards will be capped, adversely affecting those with catastrophic injuries.
In some instances the tariff is extremely low, especially for sexual offences. Tariff levels, which are basically the same as those in the discredited 1994 tariff, will not be reviewed until 1999. The tariff provides no flexibility in difficult cases.
Published this morning were the minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 3 May 1995. Senior officials in the Home Office gave evidence about the compensation scheme, among other matters. The permanent secretary, when talking about the old scheme, referred to 33 awards for punctured lung injuries in 1991–92. The awards ranged from £601 to £29,203. The permanent secretary said that he was struck by the "enormous range". So may we all be.
The common law scheme, however, was designed to provide compensation directly related to the individual's circumstances and needs. Under the new scheme, the tariff for a punctured lung will be set at £3,000. Save for the most exceptional cases, no one will receive more than £3,000. Those who might have received £29,203 will receive over £26,000 less than that.
At the heart of the justification for the Bill is the Government's desire to cut costs. They wish to cut the compensation that is available to victims, especially to those of the most serious crime.
The estimates that are used to justify the cuts are scarcely worth the paper on which they are printed. The Conservative campaign guide stated, in an attempt to justify the changes, that costs would rise to £570 million by the year 2000. In the explanatory and financial memorandum, we are told that the costs will rise instead to £460 million.
When I put this point to the Secretary of State on 23 May on Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The latter is a more up-to-date estimate. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that inflation has gone down, which is one of the factors that has been taken into account."—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 748.]
I have examined the estimates of inflation. I made it clear that I was speaking about the 1992 Conservative campaign guide, not the 1994 guide. The 1994 guide used the figure of £570 million. It was published after the November 1993 Budget, including the Red Book.
If we compare the estimates of future inflation in the 1993 Red Book up to 1999 with the latest estimates until that year, we see that there is hardly any difference between them. The 1993 Red Book predicted that inflation would reach 2 per cent. by 1998–99, as does the 1994 Red Book. There is only a marginal difference between them. There is no difference that could conceivably explain why suddenly estimates would be reduced by £110 million or 20 per cent.
In Committee, the Minister of State was repeatedly challenged to explain the estimated fall of £110 million. Where had the estimated £570 million come from? Where had £460 million come from? He failed repeatedly to offer any credible explanation. The estimates on which this discreditable Bill is based are entirely unreliable. It is unfortunate that the Government have offered no serious explanation of the discrepancy and of other changes in costs. That does them no credit.
We know that the Secretary of State has wasted millions of pounds of the public's money by seeking to change the common law system of compensation without any statutory authority and in patent breach of the law of the land, as was found by a Committee of the other place earlier this year.
As a result of impetuous and unlawful acts by the Secretary of State, he set up the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which has now had to be wound up. He first insisted that claims for the preceding year would be judged on the basis of the unlawful tariff scheme. He had to dismantle that scheme, but at the same time has had to ensure that those who would have been awarded more under the old scheme will receive more. Those who would have received less under the common law scheme will, at the same time, keep their higher tariff award.
What is the cost of the Secretary of State's unlawful behaviour? There should be the fullest investigation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's profligacy by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
Had a local council gone in for unlawful expenditure in the face of explicit legal advice and court judgments, and wasted millions of pounds, the Home Secretary would have been the first to demand that the Audit Commission should investigate, and that the councillors be surcharged.
Throughout the Bill's passage, the Secretary of State has sought to evade responsibility for decisions to slash compensation, for which he is morally and politically responsible, by asking us whether we would restore the scheme in full in the event of a Labour Government. That evasion of responsibility will not wash. Labour would not have tricked the electorate as the Conservatives did at the last election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said, Labour's position is clear. If Ministers do not cut the scheme now, we will not cut it either. If Ministers maintain the public expenditure survey allocation up to the election and beyond, as they have every right and, indeed, duty to do, we shall keep it there. But if funding for the common law scheme is removed, no guarantees can be given by any party which seeks responsibly to govern the country.
On 23 May, the Secretary of State could not even say what would be in the Chancellor's Budget this autumn. He could not say what the availability of funding would be in the Chancellor's Budget. Today, the Home Secretary could not even say who the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be, let alone what might be in the Budget.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer who presents the autumn Budget is, God forbid, the nominee of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who intends to give away £5 billion in tax cuts and pay for those tax cuts through wholly unidentifiable efficiency savings, the public finances that Labour will inherit when we form a Government will be in an extremely sorry state.
I hope that, when the Secretary of State replies, he has the same full-hearted condemnation for the right hon. Member for Wokingham as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yesterday, when he accused the former Secretary of State for Wales of
plucking figures out of the air"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate on the views of members of the Cabinet on Britain's financial situation. This is a specific debate on the Bill. I urge the hon. Gentleman to get back to it, and the Home Secretary to resist the temptation to make any comment as well.

Mr. Straw: I was dealing merely with the further uncertainties that now afflict the Government and their


public spending plans. But speaking of figures that are plucked out of the air, one might say the same for the figures of £570 million and £460 million which the House has variously been given for the possible cost of keeping the old scheme going right up until the year 2000.
Just three months ago, the Leader of the House warned the Prime Minister that by these cuts in the criminal injuries compensation scheme the Government had placed themselves
on the wrong side of an argument about the victims of crime".
He was, of course, right.
The Government's shame on the issue has been graphically shown this afternoon. For much of the three hours of debate, not a single Conservative Back Bencher has been present in the Chamber. Still less has one spoken in support of the Bill. I might also add that the Liberal Democrat Benches have been vacant for almost the whole debate. There has been no contribution from any Liberal Democrat during the course of the debate. I am sure that the people of Littleborough and Saddleworth will be interested to know the Liberal Democrats' lack of support for improvements in the criminal injuries compensation scheme and for the Opposition's fight to maintain the old scheme.
It is little wonder that so few Conservative Members have been present and that none has spoken, because the Government's record on crime has been one of the shames of this Administration. Crime has doubled, and the number of victims has doubled, while there has been an absolute reduction in the number of people convicted of or cautioned for crime.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham was right about one thing in the manifesto he issued yesterday. He said:
We catch far too few criminals—detection rates have to be raised.
The Government have failed the victims of crime. Worse, they are now punishing the victims for that failure. That is why we believe that the Bill should not be given a Third Reading tonight.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I invite the House to reject the reasoned amendment which has just been moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), to the detailed terms of which I shall come in a moment. However, I say at this early stage that the use of the word "reasoned" has rarely been less appropriate than in describing the amendment.
The Bill paves the way for a new criminal injuries compensation scheme under which compensation will, for the first time, be paid to the blameless victims of crimes of violence on a statutory basis. Unlike the present, non-statutory arrangements, the new scheme will concentrate on a straightforward tariff approach for the majority of victims. But it will also ensure that the needs of those most seriously affected by their injuries are generously met. We believe that that strikes the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of the taxpayer.
Continuation of the old scheme, based on common law damages, was no longer a viable option. Costs were rising rapidly, and many victims were having to wait a long time for their money, despite the best efforts of my noble Friend Lord Carlisle and the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Board—efforts for which we remain very grateful. In contrast, the new, enhanced tariff scheme should enable costs to be more readily predicted and controlled, and once the new scheme has settled down and the remaining old scheme cases have been cleared, victims should get their money more quickly and with less fuss.
In devising the new scheme, we have of course listened to the criticisms of the earlier non-statutory tariff scheme which was withdrawn in April following the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The new scheme incorporates many of the more helpful suggestions made in both Houses and elsewhere.
All successful claimants will get a tariff award, but, in more serious cases, victims will also receive additional payment for loss of earnings and for special care. In fatal cases, payment will additionally be made for dependency and loss of support.
We are doubling the upper limit for awards payable under the old tariff scheme from £250,000 to £500,000, and we are making provision for recipients of higher-value awards to opt for payment by structured settlements. Those can provide a stream of index-linked, tax-free payments for life, considerably increasing the net value of the award. In addition, the tariff of awards has been improved and refined, to reflect the experiences of operating the non-statutory tariff scheme in 1994–95.
The Bill has already been discussed in detail in Committee. Among other things, it was agreed there that the benefits of structured settlements should be extended to claimants under the old scheme whose claims have still to be settled. We shall seek to give effect to that in another place. We also agreed to an express provision being made on the face of the Bill that the new independent appeals panel should be able to offer advice to the Secretary of State on matters relating to the scheme.
Perhaps I should also remind the House that, contrary to the completely erroneous impression given in the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment, the Bill provides that the more important features of the new scheme will be subject to parliamentary approval, both before the new scheme starts, and before any changes are made subsequently.
The so-called reasoned amendment also claims that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to evade responsibility for the scheme. That simply beggars belief. The Bill does no such thing, as was explained at length to Opposition Members in Committee. What the Bill does is preserve the present position and make it clear that the Secretary of State is not responsible for the decisions in individual cases taken by claims officers or the scheme manager.
Of course the Secretary of State has responsibility for the scheme and for the rules and procedures under which it operates. The Bill is quite clear on that, and for the Opposition to claim otherwise is characteristically absurd.
Since I am dealing with uninformed comment, I repeat that the new scheme does not cut the amount of money which will be available to compensate victims—far from it. We are simply controlling the unsustainable rate of growth in such expenditure. Ours is by far the most generous compensation scheme in the world, and it will remain so once the changes envisaged in the Bill come into force.
We pay out more compensation than the United States, and more than all the other countries in Europe put together. By the end of the decade, the liability to


compensation will be in the order of £250 million a year. That is no mean achievement, and one in which we can all justifiably take pride.
All that the hon. Member for Blackburn can do in the face of that is to nit-pick about some detailed estimates which have had to be revised in the light of more up-to-date information—a process so foreign to the hon. Gentleman that he does not appear to understand even that simple state of affairs.
Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman why the estimates over which he spent such an inordinate amount of time have been changed. The estimates are affected by several different factors. I have to spell them out for hon. Gentleman, although I think that most people will readily understand what they involve. They include the number of cases settled; the success rate; the percentage of claimants receiving an award; inflation; and increases in the average award. Those estimates have to be based on long-term, 10-year trends. Clearly, those change over a period as circumstances change and later data become available.
The figure of £570 million over which the hon. Gentleman spent—indeed, wasted—so much time was derived before the outturn figures for 1993–94 were available. We now have the outturn figures for two subsequent years. Our information is more accurate and up to date. We prefer to make our estimates based on the most accurate and up-to-date information available—a process clearly completely alien to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.
The Labour party has no constructive alternative to the scheme which the Government propose in the Bill. There is no clearer evidence of that than the complete about-face demonstrated in its so-called reasoned amendment. On Second Reading, the bon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends complained in their amendment about the inadequacy of provision for criminal injuries. When he was challenged to make a clear, specific commitment to increase resources, he refused to do so.
We now have a totally different reasoned amendment. It clearly was not drafted by the hon. Gentleman. It was clearly drafted by someone who understood the impossibility of complaining about inadequate resources while refusing to make a commitment to increasing resources. It was drafted by someone who had some glimmering of understanding that government is about making decisions—often hard decisions.
The gulf between the person who drafted the reasoned amendment and its contents, and the contents of the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn could not have been wider—it was enormous. Indeed, it rather looked as though the hon. Member for Blackburn had not even taken the trouble to read the so-called reasoned amendment before he got up to make his speech. The Labour party is not prepared to face up to the need to make decisions. Until and unless it is, it should be treated with the derision it deserves.
We have now come up with as good a scheme as it is possible to devise, given the constraints under which any responsible Government must operate. It is a generous, straightforward and transparent scheme, and one that serves the interests of victims and taxpayers alike. The Bill provides the framework of that scheme, and I invite the House to reject the reasoned amendment, endorse the scheme and give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I explained on Second Reading the view that I and my hon. Friends took of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who served on the Committee, is not here today because he is on parliamentary duty in the United States. Neither his views nor mine have changed since then.
The Bill amends the present system in ways that the Home Secretary was right to say start from a need to reappraise the ever-escalating cost. I concede that. The most interesting and important question is how much money will be in the kitty. I do not dissent from the view—indeed, it is unarguable—that we have the most generous system in the world. That is clear.
It is also unarguable that the cost has grown over the years, and if the old system remained, it would go on growing. That is why, on Second Reading, I made it clear that I thought that all responsible politicians would be forced to accept a tariff-plus system. There is no other way, unless we accept uncontainable prospective costs.
I made that clear before, and I hold to it. My views have not been altered by the debate in Committee. The questions that arose in Committee and on Report have not gone to the fundamentals of the Bill. Again, the Home Secretary is right to say that they went to the margins of the Bill, but that is because the Bill, in large measure, does not itself address the practicalities.
The practicalities will be how much money is in the kitty; what will be the level of awards; who reviews that and how will it be upgraded; and the scheme under the delegated legislation that the Bill will bring into operation. That is why we have the same simple view that we had at the beginning.
There were certain things wrong in the original tariff that needed to be corrected. We need to make sure that we do not reduce the amount of money and keep it pegged—not so that it escalates out of control, but at least so that it stays in line with inflation, so that people are compensated for the injuries they sustain at a real rather than an ever-reducing cost. The scheme must be flexible, so that it meets the variety of injuries and practical losses that people sustain through disability, on-going costs, loss of earnings and the rest.
This is not a Bill that we would have introduced, or one that needed to be introduced in this way or form. It is important that we continue to put more money and interest into the cause of victims. That is why the Home Secretary and his hon. Friends have not received our support for their proposals, either at earlier stages of the Bill or tonight.
I understand that there will be further challenges in another place. The legal and other interested professions, let alone the victim support groups and victims' representatives, are unhappy at the prospect of reduced funding. That is the greatest fear that people will have as a result of this debate. The scheme may have been the most generous in the world, but people will fear that, in future, it will be both less generous and less flexible, and that is a bad thing.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided:? Ayes 202, Noes 260.

Division No. 187]
[6.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Graham, Thomas


Adams, Mrs Irene
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)


Ainger, Nick
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ainsworth, Robert (CoVtry NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Allen, Graham
Gunnell, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hain, Peter


Armstrong, Hilary
Harvey, Nick


Ashton, Joe
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Austin-Walker, John
Henderson, Doug


Barnes, Harry
Hendron, Dr Joe


Battle, John
Heppell, John


Bayley, Hugh
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bell, Stuart
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hodge, Margaret


Bennett, Andrew F
Hoey, Kate


Benton, Joe
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Bermingham, Gerald
Home Robertson, John


Berry, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Betts, Clive
Hoon, Geoffrey


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, N (N''c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Burden, Richard
Hutton, John


Byers, Stephen
Illsley, Eric


Caborn, Richard
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Callaghan, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jamieson, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mön)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cam, Jamie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cariile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Church, Judith
Keen, Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Khabra, Piara S


Clelland, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwcod, Archy


Coffey, Ann
Lewis, Terry


Cohen, Harry
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Comarty, Michael
Livingstone, Ken


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Corston, Jean
McAvoy, Thomas


Cousins, Jim
McCartney, Robert (North Down)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelll)
McFall, John


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
McLeish, Henry


Dobson, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacShane, Denis


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Fatchett Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fyfe, Maria
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Moriey, Elliot


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Garrett, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gerrard, Neil
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, Bill





O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pearson, lan
Snape, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Soley, Clive


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Spearing, Nigel


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Spellar, John


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stevenson, George


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Timms, Stephen


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Dr John
Touhig, Don


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wallace, James


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Wright Dr Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Ayes:


Simpson, Alan
Mr. George Mudie and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Eric Clarke.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Congdon, David


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ashby, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Elletson, Harold


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Field,, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Peter
Fishburn, Dudley


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Chapman, Sydney
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Churchill, Mr
French, Douglas


Clappison, James
Gale, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gallie, Phil






Gardiner, Sir George
Lidington, David


Garnier, Edward
Lightbown, David


Gill, Christopher
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Gillan, Cheryl
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Luff, Peter


Gorst, Sir John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
MacKay, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Hague, William
Madel, Sir David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hampson, Dr Keith
Major, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Malone, Gerald


Hannam, Sir John
Mans, Keith


Hargreaves, Andrew
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Harris, David
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hawkins, Nick
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hawksley, Warren
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Merchant, Piers


Heald, Oliver
Mills, Iain


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hendry, Charles
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Moate, Sir Roger


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Horam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Winal W)
Norris, Steve


Hunter, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ottaway, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Page, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Pawsey, James


Kirkhope, Timothy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knapman, Roger
Pickles, Eric


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Porter, Barry (Winal S)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Richards, Rod


Legg, Barry
Riddick, Graham


Leigh, Edward
Robathan, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)





Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tredinnick, David


Shersby, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waller, Gary


Spring, Richard
Ward, John


Sproat, Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stephen, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stewart, Allan
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Surnberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sykes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Thomason, Roy
Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.

Film Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of Elstree studios—a matter of deep interest to my constituents, who take a great pride in our cinematic tradition. No doubt, the House will be aware that Elstree is a proud name in the history of the British cinema. Such great British movies of the past as "The Dambusters" and "Moby Dick" were made there, and my constituents are used to seeing the great faces of British cinema in their streets. Throughout Elstree and Borehamwood, there is a rich heritage of cinematic tradition, and much film-making skill. More recently, Elstree has played host to some major Hollywood productions, including the "Star Wars" films and the Indiana Jones trilogy, with which hon. Members are no doubt familiar.
However, a great change took place in the fortunes of Elstree studios when they were acquired by Brent Walker in 1988. Brent Walker acquired the site on the strict understanding with the local authority, Hertsmere borough council, that planning consent would be given for the development of about half the site for retail purposes while the remainder was to be developed for use in the film industry. That was built into the planning agreement between Brent Walker and the council.
Since 1988, something of a saga has developed over Brent Walker's ownership of Elstree. I draw two material points to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. First—this is most important to my constituents—Brent Walker has not carried out its undertaking to develop the remaining part of the studios for the purposes of film making. Sadly, the studios in which such proud British films were made remain dark and unused. Secondly, notwithstanding Brent Walker's assertions to the contrary, there has been much real and substantial interest among other film makers in continuing film production at Elstree. There is clear evidence of that, and Hertsmere council knows of it.
I am fortified in that assertion by the conclusion of the Select Committee on National Heritage, whose members came to Elstree late last year. The residents of Elstree and the council were grateful to the Committee for the interest that it took, and it was firm in its conclusions that there was interest in, and a continuing future for, the studios.
Having investigated the situation carefully, the Committee's conclusion was:
The Committee applauds the efforts of Hertsmere Borough Council to enable film production to be resumed at the historic Elstree studios, welcomes Twentieth Century-Fox's indication of interest, and deplores the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Brent Walker. It hopes that the situation will be speedily resolved and that Elstree Studios will once again be listed among the UK's functioning film studios.
My constituents would say amen to that.
"Dog-in-the-manger" is a good phrase to describe Brent Walker's behaviour throughout the saga, and many of my constituents would welcome a change in the ownership of the studios so that films could be made there again. That is why they fully support the efforts of Hertsmere borough council to bring that about.
After the long saga caused by Brent Walker's dog-in-the-manger attitude, the council finally brought matters to a head. Earlier this month, it gave Brent Walker 14 days to agree purchase by negotiation before compulsory purchase proceedings would be initiated. That deadline expired on 16 June, and Hertsmere is now pressing ahead with its stated intention.
I welcome the opportunity that the debate gives me to place on record my support for the council's course of action—a course supported by all the parties on the council. There is also great support in Borehamwood. I also agree with the Select Committee's conclusions about the future of Elstree studios. Obviously, their immediate future is in the hands of the council, but their long-term future is linked to the overall health of the British film industry, and that is the subject that I shall talk about next.
Incidentally, Elstree studios are not the only film-making interest for my constituents. Not far away are the Third Millennium studios, which are using Leavesden aerodrome as the studios for the new James Bond movie "Goldeneye". That is of great interest to many of my constituents. No doubt, their film-making skills are being put to good use there. I am sure that they are glad to see that James Bond has followed such other important figures as Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones and Inspector Morse in beating a path to Hertfordshire. With all those people coming to Hertfordshire, it is not surprising that our crime rate is falling.
Those are the ambitious plans for film making close to my constituency. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who takes a great interest in such matters and has spoken of turning Watford into the Hollywood of western Europe. No doubt, that is on the cards if we can bring major film productions such as "Goldeneye" to Hertfordshire.
I urge the Minister to give his full support to film making in Hertfordshire and to the British film industry as a whole. Earlier this month, the Government gave their response to the Select Committee report, and that response has been widely welcomed in the industry. It represented some good positive steps forward, based on the recommendations of the Select Committee and introducing measures for which the film industry has been asking for a long time, including the long-awaited London Film Commission to assist film making in London. That, too, will be warmly welcomed.
Measures have also been put in place to assist entry to this country for those with skills in film making, stars and so on, through changes in the work permit arrangements. The money to come from the national lottery should not be overlooked either. That will be an important source of funds for film making—a fact that has been widely welcomed, not least in my constituency, where I understand that £85,000 of lottery money has been allocated to investigate the feasibility of a permanent display at Elstree studios.
One of the major proposals for reviving our film industry involves fiscal incentives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that idea in his statement to the House on 6 June. Rightly and understandably, he said that considering the merits of fiscal incentives was a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer when planning his Budget.
What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said was welcomed by the film industry. In his statement, he went as far as to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
carefully consider the Committee's recommendations together with the logic that underpins them."—[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 20.]
That has been interpreted, I hope rightly, in the film industry as a sign that the Government are listening to its concerns and proposals. The industry hopes that the proposals will be given the careful consideration that they undoubtedly merit. If there is an open door there, I shall, perhaps, push it a little further open this evening by urging my hon. Friend the Minister to do what the Chancellor said, and to consider carefully the long-standing and well-considered case that has been put forward by the film industry.
I press on my hon. Friend one particular measure—accelerated tax write-offs for film production. The industry is asking for such write-offs to take place in the first year of production rather than over three years, as at present. That is one of the points that the industry has made firmly and on which there is said to be consensus in the film industry. Certainly, it was one of the proposals made by the Producers Alliance. I understand that it also had the support of the British Film Commission. The Select Committee on National Heritage treated the proposal with great seriousness and put it forward as one of its recommendations. There is a consensus view that, of all the fiscal measures, that one especially commends attention. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the case put by the film industry. It says that, in the particular circumstances of film making in this country, with the independent productions that we tend to have, this measure would assist film making and encourage investment in film making. The industry believes that it could be just the measure needed to tip the balance in favour of film making, to give it the boost that would turn this country into a major source of film production and to improve our already very good standing.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at the proposal and the merits that underpin it. He must look carefully at the great potential for film making. We have great natural advantages—the skills of our technicians and film makers, and the excellence of our artists, actors, producers and directors. We also have the great advantage of the English language, which gives us a flying start over so many of our competitors. Everybody who has looked at our film industry believes that the potential is there.
Certainly, we have done well in recent years and there have been clear signs of revival in the film industry, which are very welcome. The measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced earlier this month will undoubtedly help the industry. However, the help could go a lot further than that. We have seen tremendous films of great excellence made in this country in the past couple of years. I am thinking not just of the obvious choice that everyone mentions—"Four Weddings and a Funeral"—but of other good films such as "Shadowlands", "Remains of the Day", "The Madness of King George" and "Tom and Viv". Recently, we had the major American production "Rob Roy". All those films, especially the first four, are

major examples of the excellence of our indigenous film industry and of the great natural assets that we have. Major productions such as "Rob Roy", besides bringing employment to the country and giving a boost to our economy, are a great showcase for the country. Films such as "Rob Roy" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral" have brought the British countryside, the beauty of Scotland and our English way of life to the attention of people all over the world. They have been a showcase as well as providing welcome jobs.
That is the great advantage of the film industry. There is no doubt that it will be one of the growth industries, in which this country could be a major player. As I have said, the right steps have been taken. If the right fiscal incentives were given as well, the industry's potential would be increased. There is, clearly, an enormous advantage for this country to gain. I commend all my arguments to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that the film industry has been putting those arguments carefully to him. I urge him to listen carefully to what the industry proposes.
It is the earnest hope of my constituents that Elstree and Borehamwood can, once again, play a proud part in film making, as they did in the past. I hope that the cameras can start rolling, that the studios can be lit, that, once again, the big stars will come through Borehamwood and that the big productions, which give employment to so many of my constituents and cause so much pride, will come to the area. I hope that once again, Elstree will be synonymous with excellence in film making and that we can light up not just this country, but the whole world with the excellence of our British films.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate at a time when the National Heritage Select Committee's report and the Government's recent response have focused attention on the film industry.
My hon. Friend has referred to the impressive record the studios at Elstree have held in the history of the film industry. No one could deny the enormous contribution that Elstree has made to film making in this country, but the future of the studios is, subject to any necessary planning consents, a matter for the owners to decide. It is not for the Government to determine a matter that should be for the commercial judgment of private companies.
I shall put Elstree in the context of the current position of the film industry and the excellent opportunities which lie before it. Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in the number of British-produced films made, from 32 films in 1992 to 49 last year. There has been an equivalent rise in the amount of investment by overseas production companies in the UK, up from less than £70 million in 1992 to more than £176 million in 1994. In all, 89 films were made with significant British involvement in 1994, with total budgets amounting to more than £450 million. This, coupled with a fast-growing audience for film and the development of new technologies in the audiovisual industry, presents us with a time of great opportunity for the film industry.
In his recent statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage referred to the two strands in which these opportunities


lie: first, the opportunity to attract film makers from overseas to the UK and, secondly, the opportunity for British film makers to take advantage of the acknowledged strength of their industry.
To help the industry respond to the opportunities offered by overseas production, the Government agreed last year to continue support for the excellent work of the British Film Commission in attracting foreign film makers to the UK. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we have recently announced that we shall also provide pump-priming support for the establishment of a film commission in London. The lack of a commission in London, where most of the UK's technicians and film and television facilities are based, has proved to be a notable gap in the network of film commissions throughout the UK and a material weakness when marketing the UK as a place to film.
In the production of British films, British Screen Finance has been extremely successful in encouraging investment in feature film production and it has an impressive record in recouping loans to reinvest in new productions, without compromising its remit of encouraging new talent. To date, it has invested in more than 100 feature films, including "Land and Freedom", which won an award at Cannes this year, and "Jack and Sarah", which was released this month. In recognition of its achievements, we intend to continue funding British Screen Finance beyond the present financial year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed, in his statement recently, a new source of funding for film production—the national lottery, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. The Arts Council of England has said that, depending on the quality of applications it receives, it could invest more than £70 million by the year 2000 in the production of British films, in partnership with others such as Channel 4 and the BBC.
We are also considering the ways in which the industry might be developed into a stronger and more established sector. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that we intend to set up an advisory committee comprising representatives of financial institutions and production companies to examine the issues involved.
My hon. Friend called for 100 per cent. first-year tax write-offs for expenditure on film production. This is not a new suggestion; indeed, it was one of the recommendations put forward by the National Heritage Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his statement that the Government would bear in mind the Committee's tax recommendations in the run-up to the next Budget, but there is nothing that I can usefully add to that on this occasion because tax policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Government support international co-production through membership of Eurimages, enabling 49 British productions to go ahead since the United Kingdom joined the scheme in 1993. Most of the Eurimages-funded films are low budget, but the UK has been particularly successful in gaining support for higher-budget films. The Government-funded European Co-production Fund, administered by British Screen Finance, has supported co-productions with 14 other countries, enabling film makers to access state support in each of the co-producer's countries.
Since the inception of the European Co-production Fund in 1991, the number of UK co-productions has increased from 12 in 1992 to 32 in 1994. There is, however, little point in encouraging production if the films made are not also shown widely to British audiences. Many British films do not achieve wide distribution because of inadequate marketing and because too few prints are available for circulation. The Arts Council has agreed that, provided it receives sound applications, it could make more than £14 million available over the next five years for distribution and cinema improvements.
As a well-planned London launch is important if a film is to generate effective media attention, the Government are also providing funding for a study to examine the feasibility of a west end showcase to provide a venue for premieres of smaller-scale British films. This would be intended to generate the publicity necessary for a successful UK-wide cinema release. We plan to involve other organisations in the study, and the BBC has already said that it would like to be involved. Should the feasibility study show that the scheme would be viable, others would need to take it forward.
In this year of the cinema centenary, we have a unique opportunity to promote cinema-going to the British public. Plans have been drawn up by an industry organisation, Cinema 100, to celebrate the centenary and the Government have agreed to provide £180,000 this year towards the cost of its initiatives. I have mentioned a number of new initiatives, but the Government's interest in film is long term, as support for existing measures demonstrates.
The National Film and Television School, which recently announced that it plans to move to new premises at Ealing studios, is supported annually by a Government contribution of £1.85 million. The school prepares graduate students for careers in film and television, and graduates enjoy a 100 per cent. success rate in finding employment. Since 1973, students have won more than 250 awards for films at international festivals and industry ceremonies.
Film is a cultural as well as an economic activity, and in recognition of this, the Government provide substantial support for the British Film Institute. The institute's primary role is to encourage the understanding and development of moving image culture in all its forms. The BFI operates a world-class library, the Museum of the Moving Image, the national film and television archive and, through the national film theatre and grants to the regional film theatres, enables the public to see and appreciate a wide range of world cinema.
The Government also provided support for the original five-year MEDIA programme, which is now coming to an end. It was designed to enhance the strength of member states' national audiovisual industries by encouraging greater collaboration and wider distribution of their products. The UK has pushed for its successor, MEDIA II, to focus on three areas: training, project development and distribution. The UK has played an active part in negotiations on MEDIA II, ensuring where possible that the views of the UK industry are taken into account in shaping the programme. Ministers have now reached a common position in the European Council on the decisions for implementing MEDIA II. The Government


believe that MEDIA II will help to consolidate the achievements of the current programme while maintaining its momentum.
During its presidency, the UK was a major driving force in refocusing Audiovisual Eureka, the pan-European initiative, designed to strengthen the audiovisual industry. The Government provide support in the form of a contribution towards the maintenance and work of the Brussels-based Eureka permanent secretariat.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that all the measures that I have mentioned add up to considerable evidence that the Government wish to encourage the future development of an exciting and vital industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, at this time, actively taking steps to move forward the initiatives announced in his recent statement, which I am glad my hon. Friend so warmly welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Seven o'clock.